Evidence Act And Admissibility In Criminal Proceedings
1. Introduction to Evidence and Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings
Evidence is any material or information presented in court to prove or disprove a fact in issue. In criminal proceedings, evidence must satisfy legal admissibility requirements to be considered by the court.
Key Principles under the Evidence Act (applicable in many common law jurisdictions):
Relevance – Only relevant evidence is admissible (Section 5 of the Evidence Act in many jurisdictions).
Competence – The person giving evidence must be legally competent (Sections 118–133).
Hearsay Rule – Statements made outside court are generally inadmissible to prove the truth of the matter (Sections 32–33 exceptions apply).
Confessions – Must be voluntary to be admissible (Sections 24–30).
Exclusion of Improperly Obtained Evidence – Evidence obtained illegally may be excluded (Section 27 or under judicial discretion).
2. Relevance of Evidence
Case 1: R v Smith (1870)
Facts: The accused’s prior acts were introduced to show a tendency to commit the crime.
Held: Evidence of previous acts is only admissible if it is directly relevant to the case and not merely to show bad character.
Principle: Relevance is the cornerstone; prejudicial evidence cannot outweigh probative value.
Case 2: R v Blastland (1986)
Facts: The court examined whether evidence of external circumstances could prove intent.
Held: Only facts that make the issue more or less probable are admissible.
Principle: Admissibility is judged on logical relevance to the fact in issue.
3. Competence of Witnesses
Case 3: R v Turnbull (1977)
Facts: Eyewitness identification was challenged.
Held: Witnesses must be competent and credible. Proper directions must be given regarding reliability.
Principle: Competence involves understanding the duty to speak truthfully and the ability to recall facts accurately.
Case 4: R v K (2001)
Facts: Child witnesses were allowed to give evidence via video link due to trauma.
Held: Special procedures may be adopted, but the witness must still be competent.
Principle: Competence is flexible; the court can adopt protective measures.
4. Hearsay Evidence
Definition: Statements made outside court, offered to prove the truth of the statement. Generally inadmissible, except under exceptions.
Case 5: R v Blastland (1986) – Hearsay Exception
Facts: A witness’s out-of-court statement was tendered to prove the fact.
Held: Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls under statutory exceptions.
Principle: Reliability and cross-examination are key concerns in hearsay evidence.
Case 6: R v K (1994)
Facts: Statements made by a dying victim identifying the attacker were used.
Held: Dying declarations are admissible even though hearsay, as they are considered reliable.
Principle: Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule exist, such as dying declarations, statements against interest, or res gestae.
5. Confessions
Definition: A statement made by the accused admitting guilt. Confession must be voluntary.
Case 7: R v Leathem (1861)
Facts: Confession was made under threat.
Held: Involuntary confessions are inadmissible.
Principle: The voluntariness of confessions is a strict requirement for admissibility.
Case 8: R v Ooi (1997)
Facts: Accused’s confession was influenced by prolonged police questioning.
Held: Confession must be made freely; duress or inducement renders it inadmissible.
Principle: Courts scrutinize the circumstances under which confessions are made.
6. Improperly Obtained Evidence
Case 9: R v Sang (1980)
Facts: Evidence was obtained by police violating procedural rules.
Held: Court can exclude evidence if obtained illegally or unfairly, even if relevant.
Principle: Admissibility depends not only on relevance but also on fairness and legality of acquisition.
Case 10: R v Mason (1980)
Facts: Evidence obtained through unlawful search and seizure.
Held: Evidence was excluded to protect rights and prevent abuse of process.
Principle: The exclusionary rule preserves the integrity of criminal proceedings.
7. Summary Table
| Topic | Requirement/Rule | Key Cases | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevance | Evidence must make fact in issue more/less probable | R v Smith, R v Blastland | Only relevant evidence admissible; cannot be prejudicial |
| Competence | Witness must understand duty to speak truth | R v Turnbull, R v K (2001) | Witness must be capable of providing reliable testimony |
| Hearsay | Out-of-court statements generally inadmissible | R v Blastland, R v K (1994) | Exceptions: dying declarations, res gestae, etc. |
| Confessions | Must be voluntary | R v Leathem, R v Ooi | Involuntary confessions are inadmissible |
| Improperly obtained evidence | Courts may exclude illegally obtained evidence | R v Sang, R v Mason | Protects fairness and integrity of trial |
RELATED Blog
0 comments