464 Malayan Law Journal [2010] 4 MLJ The law is clear on the subject. Whenever the opponent has declined to avail himself of the opportunity to put his essential and material case in cross-examination, it must follow that he believed that the testimony given could not be disputed at all. It is wrong to think that this is merely a technical rule of evidence. It is a rule of essential justice. It serves to prevent surprise at trial and miscarriage of justice, because it gives notice to the other side of the actual case that is going to be made when the turn of the party on whose behalf the cross-examination is being made comes to give and lead evidence by producing witnesses. It has been stated on high authority of the House of Lords that this much a counsel is bound to do when cross-examining that he must put to each of his opponent’s witnesses in turn, so much of his own case as concerns that particular witness or in which that witness had any share. If he asks no question with regard to this, then he must be taken to accept the plaintiff ’s account in its entirety. Such failure leads to miscarriage of justice, first by springing surprise upon the party when he has finished the evidence of his witnesses and when he has no further chance to meet the new case made which was never put and secondly, because such subsequent testimony has no chance of being tested and corroborated. [50] There are in fact findings made by the HC judge which militate against the allegation that Ivan was a known factor to the KSK and KSY and this was when he stated: A B C D E … There was no evidence of any plan between the first accused and the second child, who is said to be his girl friend, to commit the offence. There is no evidence that the third child had met the first accused and the fourth child at the house on the night of the crime. There was no evidence that the third child was aware of the crime or participated in the commission of the crime as she was asleep in her room. There was no evidence that the second or third child had facilitated the entry into the house of the deceased, the first accused, the fourth child, or any other person, for the commission of the offence. There was no evidence that the second child knew that the first accused would have been outside the house, when she sneaked out of the house through the window of her room, in order to meet Chen Boon Chin (SP13) after her call to him at 12.10am, on 12 November 2003. There was evidence from SP8 that the third child had intended to sneak out of the house (‘curi keluar’) that night, but the fact she aborted her plan seems to suggest something unexpected and unplanned had occurred. … F G H Although there was evidence that the second child had met the first accused, immediately after she had sneaked out of the house through the window of her room, there is no evidence that this was a pre-arranged meeting between them. I [51] The above finding by itself negated the contention that there was some plan in existence where Ivan figures in it to assist in the escape. There were inconsistencies in the explanation furnished by the appellants. If Ivan was indeed there alone or with another person it is not in consonance with the