PASTOR RAYMOND KOH magistrate holds an inquiry by examining witnesses on oath and while usually following the ordinary rules of evidence, he may admit any evidence which he thinks fit, especially hearsay evidence; (g) the verdict of the magistrate is only an expression of a nonbinding opinion of a proceeding where there is no accusa�on against any party; (h) it follows that a coroners inquest is merely a court of law, not a court of jus�ce. Its verdict does not amount to any convic�on. (i) many of these principles are outlined in our Prac�ce Direc�ons No 1 of 2007: Guidelines on Inquest (as restated in Prac�ce Direc�on No 2 of 2014 Arahan Amalan Bil 2 Tahun 2014: Pengendalian Siasatan Kematian (Death Inquiry) Selaras Dengan Penubuhan Mahkamah Khas Koroner) To quote some of the parts immediately relevant to this appeal: 1. What is an Inquest? (a) It is not a trial. (b) There are no par�es to prosecute and to defend. (c) It is only an inquiry by a magistrate as to the cause of death and the Prosecu�ng Officer is there not to prosecute anyone but only to assist the court with the examina�on of witnesses for the purpose of giving evidence. ... (f) A magistrate Coroner shall not express any opinion on any ma�er un�l the conclusion of the inquest. (g) There is no convic�on or punishment at the end of it. … [70] ...the scheme and structure of the interlocking provisions under Chapter XXXII of the CPC mandate a lower standard. I am therefore of the view that the applicable standard should be the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabili�es.” 69. In the case of Teoh Meng Kee above, Mah Weng Kwai JCA further held as follows: “[108] It will be noted that s 328 of the CPC speaks of opinion. The sec�on does not s�pulate what the standard of proof is that has to be applied in an inquiry of death. Although s 328 of the CPC is silent on the standard 22