A confession must be voluntary, supported by corroborative evidence, as determined through careful judicial scrutiny of procedural conduct.

[1] This is an appeal by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the Court of Appeal which had set aside the conviction of the respondent by the Kuching High Court on a charge of murder under s 302 read with s 34 of the Penal Code . At the Kuching High Court the respondent was charged, together with another person still at large, with having committed the murder of Mr Fabian Lim Ann Hoaw ('the deceased') on 18 February 2005 at about 6.15pm in front of Fu Xiang Food Centre at Rubber Road, Satok, Kuching, Sarawak.

[2] At the end of the trial the learned trial judge found that, upon maximum evaluation, the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the respondent had failed to raise a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case and accordingly found him guilty of murder under s 302 of the Penal Code and sentenced him to death.

[3] The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence on the ground that the cautioned statement of the respondent which was the primary basis (if not the sole basis) of his conviction was not made voluntarily. The Court of Appeal held that it was unsafe to convict the respondent solely on the cautioned statement without independent corroboration. An accused person may be convicted solely on the strength of a confession but as a matter of prudence the Court looks for corroboration: Sinaraju v. Public Prosecutor , , Public Prosecutor v. Lai Pong Yuen & Ors; and Juraimi Husin v. Public Prosecutor , [1998] 1 MLJ 537. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the findings of the trial Court that there was independent corroborative evidence to show that the respondent was involved in the murder of the deceased. The trial Court had found that the corroborative evidence came from PW26 (Sim Eng Huat) who was in the gold coloured Proton Wira car No BFJ 9275 when the respondent was arrested by the police on 1 February 2005; and the black bag (exh P110) seized from the house rented by the respondent on 2 March 2005. The Court of Appeal held that there was no evidence from PW26 to corroborate the respondent's cautioned statement that the respondent was involved in the murder of the deceased. The black brief case (exh P110) was not corroborative evidence to connect the respondent with the murder of the deceased.

[4] We heard the appeal on 8 September 2015 and reserved our decision. Now, this is our decision.

Background Facts

[5] Briefly, the case for the prosecution is that on 18 February 2005 the deceased, who was a lawyer and partner of the law firm of Messrs Lim & Lim, after finishing work, went with his wife, Chin Siew Chin (PW16) to Fu Xiang Food Centre at Rubber Road, Satok, Kuching for their dinner. After the dinner the deceased and his wife made their way to their car, a Mercedez Benz, which was parked nearby. As the deceased was reversing his car out of the parking lot, two persons on a motorcycle wearing full faced crash helmets drew up and stopped behind his car. The pillion rider ('the gunman') got off the motorcycle, approached the car and fired several shots at the deceased. The deceased collapsed beside his wife, who was also injured by glass splinters. The gunman then escaped on the motorcycle ridden by his companion who drove the motorcycle against the flow of traffic. The deceased passed away upon arrival at the Kuching General Hospital.

[6] The prosecution also produced evidence that prior to the shooting incident the deceased's car had been trailed by two persons in a gold coloured Proton Wira car. They were arrested by the police on the same day, that is, on 1 February 2005 acting