STANDARD OF PROOF IN AN INQUIRY OF DEATH [118] The next ques�on of law of utmost importance to be determined in this case is the standard of proof to be applied in an inquiry of death. Both the learned magistrate and the learned High Court judge adopted the beyond reasonable doubt test. With respect, I am of the view that this is an error of law as the correct test to be applied is the civil standard of balance of probabili�es. I say this for the following reasons: (a) as stated earlier, an inquiry of death is not a criminal trial or proceeding. There is no accused person on trial and there is no one to be convicted and sentenced by the court upon a finding that the prosecu�on has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt; (b) the rules on admissibility of evidence and procedure in an inquiry of death are not as strict as in a criminal trial. The magistrate is on a mere fact-finding mission and is allowed to consider even hearsay evidence. In the case of Re Loh Kah Kheng (deceased) [1990] 2 MLJ 126 it was held that a coroner is not bound by the normal procedure of courts and rules of evidence; (c) where the rules rela�ng to evidence and procedure are lax, it will be inconsistent to require a magistrate to return a verdict at the close of an inquiry on a beyond reasonable doubt standard; (d) it will be incorrect to require the family of Teoh Beng Hock to have to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt before the learned magistrate can return a verdict of homicide as the means to do so are severely limited. The family of Teoh Beng Hock, being members of the public, simply do not have the powers of investiga�on as possessed by the police. And where the threshold for proof in an inquiry of death is lower, it will not be correct nor necessary to 23 PASTOR RAYMOND KOH of proof, of course, it cannot be said that there is no standard to be applied. That would be an unacceptable posi�on in law. I am of the view that all that is required of the magistrate is to arrive at an opinion applying the balance of probabili�es (civil) standard test on an objec�ve basis. There must be sufficient evidence to arrive at an opinion, in par�cular whether the death resulted in any way from or was accelerated by any unlawful act or omission on the part of any other person.