|
viii)Submission of no case to answer viii)“不答辩“的陈词
It is a principle of law that the Defendant may submit a no case to answer at the end of the Plaintiff’s case if the Defendant is of the view that:
· The Plaintiff had failed to establish a case in law; or
· The evidence that was led by the Plaintiff is so unsatisfactory or unreliable.
法律上，被告可以在原告结案后做出“不答辩“的陈词，假设被告认为： ·原告未能在法律上证明其案件；或 ·原告提供的证据十分不令人满意或不可靠 Once a defendant in civil proceedings makes a submission of no case to answer and elects not to call evidence, then all the evidence led by the plaintiff must be assumed to be correct. 一旦民事诉讼中的被告人提出不答辩并选择不传唤任何证据，则必须假定原告人所提供的所有证据为正确的。
In a decided case of Govindasamy s/o Muthulingam v Ooi Kee Chye [2012], Chew Soo Hoo JC held that if the Plaintiff fails to prove his case then there is no need for the Defendant to rebut and thereafter can make a submission of no case to answer. 在Govindasamy s/o Muthulingam v Ooi Kee Chye [2012] 一案，法官Chew Soo Hoo 判定假设原告未能证明其诉求，那么被告无需反驳，并可以做出不答辩陈词。
Storey v Storey [1961], p68:
“There are, however, two sets of circumstances under which a Defendant may submit that he has no case to answer. In the one case, there may be submission that, accepting the Plaintiff’s evidence at its face value, no case has been established in law, and in the other that the evidence led for the Plaintiff is so unsatisfactory and unreliable that the court should find that the burden of proof has not been discharged.” Storey v Storey [1961],第68页： “然而，在两种情况下，被告可以提出不答辩陈词。第一种情况是，根据证据表面的价值接受原告的证据，原告无法在法律上证明其诉求；另一种情况则是原告的证据十分令人不满意和不可靠使到法院应该认定原告并无法卸下举证责任。
Tan Kim Khuan v Tan Kee Kiat (M) Sdn Bhd [1998] 1 CLJ SUPP 147, p706:
“If the party on whom the burden lies fails to discharge it, the other party need not call any evidence. In that event, it will not avail him to turn round and say that the respondent has not established his.”
Tan Kim Khuan v Tan Kee Kiat (M) Sdn Bhd [1998] 1 CLJ SUPP 147,第706页:
“肩负举证责任的一方倘若无法证明自己的诉求，那么另一方不需要举出任何证据。在这情况下，他不被允许转过身说答辩人没有证明他的立场。 “
It is observed in the case of Raja Chandranath Roy v Ramjai Mazumdar 6 BLR 303 as which the respondent can say: “It is wholly immaterial whether I prove my case or no. You have not proved yours”
在Raja Chandranath Roy v Ramjai Mazumdar 6 BLR 303 一案可以看到答辩人说：“ 这完全不关乎我是否能证明我的立场，而是你有没有证明你的“
Ng Ben Thong & Ors v. Krishnan A/L Arumugam [1997] 1 LNS 85; [1998] 5 MLJ 579
“The parties cannot depend on their pleadings; they must prove the facts in their pleadings with evidence. Thus, pleadings and evidence go hand in hand. If the Plaintiff cannot prove his case, then the Defendant may make a submission of no case to answer. However, if Plaintiff has established his case, the Defendant cannot just make a submission of no case to answer and rely on his allegations in his statement of defence without adducing any evidence.” Ng Ben Thong & Ors v. Krishnan A/L Arumugam [1997] 1 LNS 85; [1998] 5 MLJ 579 “当事人不能依赖他们的诉状；他们必须根据证据证明诉状中的事实。因此，诉状和证据是相辅相成的。如果原告不能证明他的诉求，那么被告可以提出无案答辩。但，如果被告已经证明了自己的诉求，那么被告就无法提出无案答辩且依靠去辩护陈述中的指控而不提供任何证据。 How Practical is the “submission of no case to answer” by the Defendant? 被告人的“无案答辩”陈词的做法有多实际？
Where the Defendant would have cross-examined the witnesses of the Plaintiff. The question will then be whether the Plaintiff has established a prima facie case at this point. At this juncture, the Plaintiff would have brought in all the evidence required to prove its pleaded case. The Plaintiff would then close its case. 被告人会盘问原告证人。那么问题将是原告此时是否已经初步证明自己的诉求。此时，原告应已经提供所有需要证明诉求的证据。原告随后将结束其陈案。
Prima Facie case: A case in which the evidence produced is sufficient to enable a decision or verdict to be made unless the evidence is rebutted. 初步证明案件：法官所提供的证据在无反驳的情况下足以做出判决。 However, the Defendant would not be aware of whether there is in fact a prima facie case established by the Plaintiff after the close of Plaintiff’s case following such cross-examination by the defence counsel.The judge will not let it be known to the parties as to whether there is or not a case to answer. The counsel for Defendant would have to access the evidence adduced by the Plaintiff and the strength of his cross-examination and documentary evidence and determine whether the judge would make a finding that the Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case.
然而，辩护律师进行盘问，原告案件结案后，被告并不知道原告是否已经初步证明了案件。法官也不会让当时人知道。被告律师必须查询原告所提出的所有证据及他自身的盘问和书面证据的效力，并推测法官是否会裁定原告没有初步证明案件。
Therefore, counsel for the Defendant would have to make a serious decision at this point. If he is confident that the Plaintiff has not established a prima facie case, then he would end the proceedings without further adducing evidence. He would state to the judge that there is no case to answer. Once he has made such an election, it is irrevocable.
因此，这对于被告律师来说是十分严肃的决定。 如果他确信原告人没有初步证明案情，那么他无需要提供进一步证据就可以结束诉讼程序。他还会向法官声明没有案件可以回答。一旦他做出这个决定就不可以撤销。
|
