DALAM MAHKAMAH RAYUAN MALAYSIA (BIDANG KUASA ...

57
from the same Styer pistol (exhibit “P23”). To compound the matter further,
the recovery of eight (8) gold chains in the front right pocket of the
appellant’s trousers mixed with glass splinters sealed the fate of the
appellant. The possibility that the appellant was not at the goldsmith’s shop
must be construed as too “far-fetched” (to borrow the words of Gopal Sri
Ram FCJ in the Shamim Reza’s case). Consequently, the fact that the
learned JC held that no alibi notice was given within the prescribed time to
the Public Prosecutor and had excluded the evidence connected with alibi
defence has not occasioned a miscarriage of justice. In our judgment, there
was no flagrant incompetence on the part of the defence counsel who
conducted the defence before the learned JC.
[116] It must be borne in mind that defence counsel having conduct
of the case before the learned JC when confronted by the learned JC as to
whether any notice of the alibi defence was forwarded to the Public
Prosecutor replied that he did not do so for want of time. This response
showed that defence counsel knew the law and he cannot be said to be
incompetent or “flagrantly incompetent” (to borrow the words of Gopal
Sri Ram FCJ in the Shamim Reza’s case). The learned JC convicted the
appellant not because of the incompetence of defence counsel but rather
because of the overwhelming circumstantial evidence adduced by the
prosecution.