Part 1
So since we have a test on Monday (18/11/2013) on Relevancy and mainly on Section 8 of the Evidence to be precise, I think it would be fitting if I posted on the matter at hand. I hope this would be helpful to all my course mates and of course to neutrals reading this I hope it will be helpful nonetheless. I shall be making two separate posts which will be known as Part 1 and Part 2. Please read both to further understand on the relevancy of facts in evidence. However before I am criticized for posting on something a little bit off the theme of this blog I think it is safe to say that differentiating between facts in issue and relevant facts still fill in the ambit of types of evidences.
As we all know, to first introduce evidence it must first be relevant and admissible under Section 5 as seen in the case of PP v Haji Kassim. Before going any further, although it’s been explained time and time again, I think I should still explain on what are “Facts in Issue” and “Relevant Facts”.
Facts In Issue: Defined in Section 3 and more specifically described by Sir Rupert Cross as evidence that needs to be proved by plaintiff (civil litigation) and prosecutor (criminal litigation) in order to succeed together with any further facts the defendants (civil litigation) or accused (criminal litigation) must prove in order to establish a defence. This is also known as direct evidence.
Relevant Facts: If facts in issue are direct evidence, then relevant facts in my own words refer to indirect evidence or inferred evidence. They are facts which are not themselves in issue but are inferred from other facts in issue. Section 6 to 55 shows ways in which one fact may be related to another so as to become relevant. If a fact is proven to be connected to the facts in issue in any of the ways referred to in Section 6 to 55 then it is a Relevant Fact and will be admissible. This is also known as circumstantial evidence.
From that we can see how important Section 6 to 55 (Chapter II) of the Evidence Act 1950 is. Basically Chapter II is used to prove if evidence may be admitted or not. Evidence that could not be proven under Chapter II counts for nothing even if it falls within the boundaries of Chapter I of the act.
Before proceeding into the detailed explanations of sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, here is a brief run down on what they really are. These 6 sections are general provisions in governing the relevancy of facts. They are worded widely as to avoid any use of specific criteria to enable more evidence to fall within the words of the sections. Section 7 to 11 generally rejects the usage of hearsay evidence but still there are debates on the words used in Section 6 as it allows hearsay evidence to be admitted as contrary to its following sections.
Section 6
This section basically describes what I said above on the definition of ‘Relevant Facts’. They are not facts in issue but they are part of the same transaction as the facts in issue are relevant. I highly suggest that you guys refer to the illustrations for a better understanding.
So what is this ‘transaction’ which it refers to? Sir James Stephen defines it to be a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue.’ So in other words, if a fact is connected to the fact in issue by a common interest or relativity then it would be a relevant fact.
Thavanathan Balasubramaniam v PP – in a ‘transaction’ which consist of different acts, in order to link it all up to constitute ONE single transaction they must be common in proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose of design.
Tan Geok Kwang v PP – in this case the accused was charged for carrying a revolver but there was an act of throwing of the hand grenade instead of the firing of the said revolver. That act was admitted under section 6 of the Act because it was part of the same transaction.
Jaafar bin Hussein v PP – this is another case which involves a hand grenade although the main charge was on the accused for carrying a shotgun. The hand grenade was accepted to be a relevant fact because it was part of the same transaction almost literally as the accused had the shotgun in one hand and the hand grenade in another.
So what about the admissibility of hearsay evidence under section 6? There have been many arguments on the words used under section 6 and also the LPQB (Legal Profession Qualifying Board) on hearsay evidence. According to the LPQB, section 6 is a hearsay exception. Personally I feel that section 6 is not a hearsay exception. Why? Well the reason is a very simple one. There are already hearsay exceptions and you can find them under sections 17 to 38 so if section 6 is meant to be a hearsay exception then why was it not included under those sections? Section 6 to 11 is mainly on the general provisions governing relevancy and it should stick to that only. But the debate is wide open to be honest because there has been many theories on section 6 for example is the link made by some of the legal communities between section 6 and res gestae (hearsay exception) of the common law. There has also been case laws that proves section 6 as a hearsay exception and also case laws that disprove it.
Kok Ho Leng v PP – the judge said obiter that a telephone message could be admitted under section 6 and res gestae which strongly suggests that section 6 admits hearsay
Chotka v State – This Indian case is for the admission of hearsay evidence under section 6
PP V Sam Hong Hong Choy – The court admitted that the utterances of ‘Tolong kejar, perompak!) under section 6 of the Act but it does not show the truth of its contents. This implies that section 6 is not a hearsay exception.
Section 7
Section 7 as mentioned earlier is also to prove the relevancy of a fact and this section will be broken down into five parts. Basically, the section provides for the relevancy of facts which:
i. Are the occasion of the relevant fact or facts in issue
ii. Are the case of the relevant fact or facts in issue
a. Saw Thein Teck v R – the accused was charged for dangerous driving and the court held that evidence indicating that he was drunk at that time could be admitted under Section 7
iii. Are the effect of relevant fact or facts in issue
a. Yusufalli v State – the court held that the imprint on a magnetic tape is the effect or consequence of the relevant sound then it is relevant under Section 7
iv. Constitutes the state of things under which the relevant facts or facts in issue happened
v. Afforded an opportunity for occurrence or transaction of the relevant fact or facts in issue
So to sum up section 7, there are five key parts of the section which you ought to remember, they are of course:
i. Occasion
ii. Cause
iii. Effect
iv. State of things
v. Opportunity for occurance
Chuah Chong Yen
A132934
So since we have a test on Monday (18/11/2013) on Relevancy and mainly on Section 8 of the Evidence to be precise, I think it would be fitting if I posted on the matter at hand. I hope this would be helpful to all my course mates and of course to neutrals reading this I hope it will be helpful nonetheless. I shall be making two separate posts which will be known as Part 1 and Part 2. Please read both to further understand on the relevancy of facts in evidence. However before I am criticized for posting on something a little bit off the theme of this blog I think it is safe to say that differentiating between facts in issue and relevant facts still fill in the ambit of types of evidences.
As we all know, to first introduce evidence it must first be relevant and admissible under Section 5 as seen in the case of PP v Haji Kassim. Before going any further, although it’s been explained time and time again, I think I should still explain on what are “Facts in Issue” and “Relevant Facts”.
Facts In Issue: Defined in Section 3 and more specifically described by Sir Rupert Cross as evidence that needs to be proved by plaintiff (civil litigation) and prosecutor (criminal litigation) in order to succeed together with any further facts the defendants (civil litigation) or accused (criminal litigation) must prove in order to establish a defence. This is also known as direct evidence.
Relevant Facts: If facts in issue are direct evidence, then relevant facts in my own words refer to indirect evidence or inferred evidence. They are facts which are not themselves in issue but are inferred from other facts in issue. Section 6 to 55 shows ways in which one fact may be related to another so as to become relevant. If a fact is proven to be connected to the facts in issue in any of the ways referred to in Section 6 to 55 then it is a Relevant Fact and will be admissible. This is also known as circumstantial evidence.
From that we can see how important Section 6 to 55 (Chapter II) of the Evidence Act 1950 is. Basically Chapter II is used to prove if evidence may be admitted or not. Evidence that could not be proven under Chapter II counts for nothing even if it falls within the boundaries of Chapter I of the act.
Before proceeding into the detailed explanations of sections 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, here is a brief run down on what they really are. These 6 sections are general provisions in governing the relevancy of facts. They are worded widely as to avoid any use of specific criteria to enable more evidence to fall within the words of the sections. Section 7 to 11 generally rejects the usage of hearsay evidence but still there are debates on the words used in Section 6 as it allows hearsay evidence to be admitted as contrary to its following sections.
Section 6
This section basically describes what I said above on the definition of ‘Relevant Facts’. They are not facts in issue but they are part of the same transaction as the facts in issue are relevant. I highly suggest that you guys refer to the illustrations for a better understanding.
So what is this ‘transaction’ which it refers to? Sir James Stephen defines it to be a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue.’ So in other words, if a fact is connected to the fact in issue by a common interest or relativity then it would be a relevant fact.
Thavanathan Balasubramaniam v PP – in a ‘transaction’ which consist of different acts, in order to link it all up to constitute ONE single transaction they must be common in proximity of time, proximity of place, continuity of action and community of purpose of design.
Tan Geok Kwang v PP – in this case the accused was charged for carrying a revolver but there was an act of throwing of the hand grenade instead of the firing of the said revolver. That act was admitted under section 6 of the Act because it was part of the same transaction.
Jaafar bin Hussein v PP – this is another case which involves a hand grenade although the main charge was on the accused for carrying a shotgun. The hand grenade was accepted to be a relevant fact because it was part of the same transaction almost literally as the accused had the shotgun in one hand and the hand grenade in another.
So what about the admissibility of hearsay evidence under section 6? There have been many arguments on the words used under section 6 and also the LPQB (Legal Profession Qualifying Board) on hearsay evidence. According to the LPQB, section 6 is a hearsay exception. Personally I feel that section 6 is not a hearsay exception. Why? Well the reason is a very simple one. There are already hearsay exceptions and you can find them under sections 17 to 38 so if section 6 is meant to be a hearsay exception then why was it not included under those sections? Section 6 to 11 is mainly on the general provisions governing relevancy and it should stick to that only. But the debate is wide open to be honest because there has been many theories on section 6 for example is the link made by some of the legal communities between section 6 and res gestae (hearsay exception) of the common law. There has also been case laws that proves section 6 as a hearsay exception and also case laws that disprove it.
Kok Ho Leng v PP – the judge said obiter that a telephone message could be admitted under section 6 and res gestae which strongly suggests that section 6 admits hearsay
Chotka v State – This Indian case is for the admission of hearsay evidence under section 6
PP V Sam Hong Hong Choy – The court admitted that the utterances of ‘Tolong kejar, perompak!) under section 6 of the Act but it does not show the truth of its contents. This implies that section 6 is not a hearsay exception.
Section 7
Section 7 as mentioned earlier is also to prove the relevancy of a fact and this section will be broken down into five parts. Basically, the section provides for the relevancy of facts which:
i. Are the occasion of the relevant fact or facts in issue
ii. Are the case of the relevant fact or facts in issue
a. Saw Thein Teck v R – the accused was charged for dangerous driving and the court held that evidence indicating that he was drunk at that time could be admitted under Section 7
iii. Are the effect of relevant fact or facts in issue
a. Yusufalli v State – the court held that the imprint on a magnetic tape is the effect or consequence of the relevant sound then it is relevant under Section 7
iv. Constitutes the state of things under which the relevant facts or facts in issue happened
v. Afforded an opportunity for occurrence or transaction of the relevant fact or facts in issue
So to sum up section 7, there are five key parts of the section which you ought to remember, they are of course:
i. Occasion
ii. Cause
iii. Effect
iv. State of things
v. Opportunity for occurance
Chuah Chong Yen
A132934