While an inquest is for the purposes of determining whether any person may be criminally concerned in the cause of death and to arrive at a verdict, a public inquiry into the enforced disappearance of a person is for the purpose of determining whether the State is in any way concerned in the involuntary disappearance of that person. 68. The relevant principles on the standard of proof in an inquest were discussed in detail by the Court of Appeal in the case of Teoh Meng Kee v Public Prosecutor [2014] 5 MLJ 741 where Mohammad Ariff JCA held as follows: “[48] The learned magistrate, and to a lesser extent, the High Court judge, cited and repeated the basic principles and rules on coronial jurisdic�on…. The commonly accepted principles are as follows: (a) an inquest is a fact-finding exercise and not a method of appor�oning guilt; (b) in an inquest, there is no indictment, no prosecu�on, no defence and no trial. It is simply an a�empt to establish facts; (c) it is an inquisitorial and an inves�ga�on process, unlike a trial; (d) a coroners verdict is not determined by probabili�es but by established facts. A coroner is bound by evidence and can only find facts proved by evidence, not guesswork; (e) if the evidence is insufficient to come to a definite finding, the coroner should record an open verdict; (f) the func�on of a magistrate holding an inquiry under Chapter XXXII of the CPC is to inquire, when, where, how and a�er what manner the deceased came by his death and also whether any person is criminally concerned in the cause of death (s 337). The cause of death is defined under s 328 to include not only the apparent cause of death as ascertainable by inspec�on or postmortem examina�on of the body of the deceased but also all ma�ers necessary to enable an opinion to be formed as to the manner in which the deceased came by his death and as to whether his death resulted in any way from, or was accelerated by any unlawful act or omission on the part of any person. Hence, the 21 PASTOR RAYMOND KOH 67.