Dashboard cameras, better known as dashcams, have quickly become a necessity in our daily driving needs rather than an extravagance. The presence of dashcam footage has helped many prove their innocence and even aided the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM) to track down road traffic offenders. Should these cameras be a mandatory regulation?
Senior lecturer in the Faculty of Syariah and Law at Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia (USIM), Muzaffar Syah Mallow, believes so.
In a letter to The Sun's editor, he urges the government should step in and relook into the Road Transport Act 1987 (Act 333) to make dashcams a compulsory tool or component in all Malaysian cars.
This can mean requiring vehicle owners to install it inside their own vehicles to requesting car manufacturers to add dashcams as part of the vehicle they are producing to avoid adding a financial burden on the public.
Not only will the footage acquired from the dashcam help with proving one’s innocence, but it will also work as good evidence in court. A lawyer may be able to use the footage from a dashcam as indisputable evidence to assist the driver with their legal battle in the court of law.
Case in point, the heated issue with Sam Ke Ting and the ‘basikal lajak’. She claims that there was another vehicle also involved in the accident. However, as there was no CCTV nor dashcam footage to back up her claims, the claims were thrown out of court.
We understand that back when the accident occurred, dashcams were still not a widely used device. But imagine if she had a dashcam installed, it would have made fighting her case much easier.
Another good example of dashcam footage used as good evidence is the recent case where a foreigner threw himself at a moving car in an attempt to claim money from the driver. However, thanks to the dashcam footage, the driver was able to prove his innocence to PDRM.
Can these footages really be used in court?
According to Muzaffar, the videos can be used in court as evidence if the situation calls for it. He referred to Section 3 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56) which defines evidence as:
All statements that the court permits or requires to be made before it by witnesses in relation to matters of fact under inquiry: such states are called oral evidence
All documents produced for the inspection of the court: such documents are called documentary evidence
While the Act might have been set in 1950 when dashcams have not been invented yet, the crucial word to note is ‘includes’, which has been used in this particular section of the Act, Muzaffar explains can be widely interpreted.
“As long as the evidence tendered is relevant, strong, and credible to our case, it can be accepted and admissible by the court of law,” he said.
Hence footage from dashcams can be used in court as a standalone piece of evidence to support or substantiate the legal battle in the court of law if the need arises.
Other than that, recordings from a dashcam can also fall under the category of documentary evidence since the definition for documentary evidence provided by the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950 (Act 56) is extensive enough to include it.
It can also be used to help build a legal case in the court of law
Muzaffar also points out that subject to the authentication process of documentary evidence provided under Section 61 until 66 of the Act, dashcam footage can also be used as documentary evidence to build a legal case in the court of law.
Conclusion
To Muzaffar, dashcams are an inexpensive way to keep both the driver and passengers safe. You might argue that dashcams are now increasing in price, but if you look at it from another point of view, it is still cheaper than paying for bail or an expensive lawyer to fight your case.
The government, Muzaffar suggests, should not only step in to control the price of dashcams but also define their quality. This would help the public determine the certain types of dashcams that are suitable to be used and installed inside their vehicle.
Keyword: Law lecturer urges government to make dashcams compulsory in all cars