Example :
John: I killed her yesterday
Mike (police officer): You did?why?
John: I was mad at her, she slept with my best friend .
With reference of the above example
Issue:
1. Are all confession made are treated as admission under the law? A valid confession is the most valuable and reliable evidence in the possession of the prosecution.
Definition of admission: Section 17(1) (Evidence Act, 1950) states that “an admission is a statement oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned
Definition of confession: Section 17(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 defined confession as an admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that offence.
So what is the status of confession evidence?
Rule 1: the confession must be made by the accused.
The law would consider it as hearsay when the admission is repeated in the court by a police officer or other witnesses. The court should rely on the truth of that statement. The classic judicial statement of the rule was formulated by the Privy Council in Subramaniam v PP (1956) :
“Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement…”
The test to see whether a statement is a confession: Anandagoda v The Queen is whether the word of admission substantially admit guilt in the eyes of reasonable person reading it
Rule 2:the confession must be made voluntarily.
The inadmissibility of confession made out involuntary statement is seen in the case of Dato Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v PP, (1963) Abdoolcader FJ said that:
No statement by an accused is admissible in evidence unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been voluntary statement . [The accused had deprivation of food and drink and sleep, the manner in which the accused was dressed and the fact of his being prevented from performing his prayers made his confession unsafe. The prosecution had failed to discharge its obligation beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary] -Refer to S24 of the Evidence Act- confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceeding .
John voluntarily confess but to a police officer of unknown ranking. In order for it to be admissible, John needs to confess by himself again in the Court of law voluntarily. What do you think?
QHAIRUNEESA MOHAMAD ESA A132812
ONG SWEE ENG A132709
John: I killed her yesterday
Mike (police officer): You did?why?
John: I was mad at her, she slept with my best friend .
With reference of the above example
Issue:
1. Are all confession made are treated as admission under the law? A valid confession is the most valuable and reliable evidence in the possession of the prosecution.
Definition of admission: Section 17(1) (Evidence Act, 1950) states that “an admission is a statement oral or documentary which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact and which is made by any of the persons and under the circumstances hereinafter mentioned
Definition of confession: Section 17(2) of the Evidence Act 1950 defined confession as an admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence, stating or suggesting the inference that he committed that offence.
So what is the status of confession evidence?
Rule 1: the confession must be made by the accused.
The law would consider it as hearsay when the admission is repeated in the court by a police officer or other witnesses. The court should rely on the truth of that statement. The classic judicial statement of the rule was formulated by the Privy Council in Subramaniam v PP (1956) :
“Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement…”
The test to see whether a statement is a confession: Anandagoda v The Queen is whether the word of admission substantially admit guilt in the eyes of reasonable person reading it
Rule 2:the confession must be made voluntarily.
The inadmissibility of confession made out involuntary statement is seen in the case of Dato Mokhtar Hashim & Anor v PP, (1963) Abdoolcader FJ said that:
No statement by an accused is admissible in evidence unless it is shown by the prosecution to have been voluntary statement . [The accused had deprivation of food and drink and sleep, the manner in which the accused was dressed and the fact of his being prevented from performing his prayers made his confession unsafe. The prosecution had failed to discharge its obligation beyond reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntary] -Refer to S24 of the Evidence Act- confession caused by inducement, threat or promise when irrelevant in criminal proceeding .
John voluntarily confess but to a police officer of unknown ranking. In order for it to be admissible, John needs to confess by himself again in the Court of law voluntarily. What do you think?
QHAIRUNEESA MOHAMAD ESA A132812
ONG SWEE ENG A132709