CRIMINAL PROCEDURE: Charges - Striking out - Application for - Whether respondent immune from corruption charges by reason of s. 132 Evidence Act 1950 - Respondent compelled to give incriminating evidence in another trial - Whether s. 132(2) intended to provide blanket protection from any criminal proceeding against respondent - Whether protection merely against arrest or prosecution or use of such evidence as proof against respondent in any criminal proceeding - Whether prosecution intended to adduce evidence given by respondent in another trial to support a pending prosecution case - Whether prosecution precluded from proceeding with pending trial on grounds respondent placed in highly prejudicial position - Whether contrary to principle of criminal justice - Whether there was a breach of protection given under s. 132

EVIDENCE: Witnesses - Duty to answer relevant questions - Compelled to give incriminating evidence in another trial - Whether respondent immune from corruption charges by reason of s. 132 Evidence Act 1950 - Whether s. 132(2) intended to provide blanket protection from any criminal proceeding against respondent - Whether protection merely against arrest or prosecution or use of such evidence as proof against respondent in any criminal proceeding - Whether prosecution intended to adduce evidence given by respondent in another trial to support a pending prosecution case - Whether prosecution precluded from proceeding with pending trial on grounds respondent placed in highly prejudicial position - Whether contrary to principle of criminal justice - Whether there was a breach of protection given under s. 132

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION: Interpretation of Acts - Intention of legislature - Evidence Act 1950, s. 132 - Whether should be given liberal and flexible interpretation - Whether s. 132(2) intended to provide blanket protection from any criminal proceeding against respondent on ground that he had been compelled to give evidence - Whether protection merely against arrest or prosecution or use of such evidence as proof against respondent in any criminal proceeding

LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Local authority - Duties of local authority - Duty of care to protect road users/public - Plaintiff injured by tree falling onto highway - Whether local authority in breach of duty to maintain/remove dangerous trees along highway - Whether duty extended to maintaining/removing trees located on private property - Whether road user proved tree was dangerous - Whether local authority liable - Local Government Act 1976, s. 101(b) & (cc)

TORT: Breach of statutory duty - Local authority - Duty of care to protect road users/public - Plaintiff injured by tree falling onto highway - Whether local authority in breach of duty to maintain/remove dangerous trees along highway - Whether duty extended to maintaining/removing trees located on private property - Whether road user proved tree was dangerous - Whether local authority liable - Local Government Act 1976 s. 101(b) & (cc)

TORT: Negligence - Duty of care - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - Whether amounts to proof of negligence - Whether doctrine applies where defendant does not have exclusive control over object alleged to have caused damage

UNDANG-UNDANG JENAYAH: Rogol - Rogol statutori - Mangsa bawah umur - Mangsa berumur 14 tahun 1 bulan - Sama ada laporan perubatan menunjukkan bahawa terdapat kemasukan zakar ke dalam kemaluan mangsa - Sama ada koyakan pada selaput dara mangsa menunjukkan hubungan seks berlaku dalam masa 72 jam - Sama ada keterangan lisan mangsa di mahkamah disokong oleh keterangannya dalam laporan perubatan - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 376

KETERANGAN: Saksi - Percanggahan keterangan - Rogol statutori - Mangsa bawah umur - Mangsa berumur 14 tahun 1 bulan - Keterangan tertuduh dalam laporan perubatan bercanggah dengan keterangan lisan di mahkamah - Sama ada keterangan mangsa diterima - Kanun Keseksaan, s. 376