Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Singapore (3)
- Exclusionary discretion (2)
- Contractual interpretation (1)
- Discretionary death penalty (1)
- Drug trafficking couriers (1)
-
- Indian Evidence Act (1)
- Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (1)
- Indian evidence act (1)
- Interests of justice (1)
- Misuse of Drugs Act (1)
- Presumption of innocence (1)
- Probative value and prejudicial effect (1)
- Relevance and admissibility (1)
- Similar fact (1)
- Similar fact evidence (1)
- Singapore evidence law (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Similar Fact Evidence In Contractual Interpretation: Bhoomatidevi D/O Kishinchand Chugani Mrs Kavita Gope Mirwani V Nantakumar S/O V Ramachandra And Another [2023] Sghc 37, Calvin John Kaiwen Chirnside
Similar Fact Evidence In Contractual Interpretation: Bhoomatidevi D/O Kishinchand Chugani Mrs Kavita Gope Mirwani V Nantakumar S/O V Ramachandra And Another [2023] Sghc 37, Calvin John Kaiwen Chirnside
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
In the recent Singapore High Court case of Bhoomatidevi d/o Kishinchand Chugani Mrs Kavita Gope Mirwani v Nantakumar s/o v Ramachandra and another [2023] SGHC 37, the claimant argued, inter alia, that evidence of a prior contract between the first defendant and a third party should be admitted to prove that the defendant had entered into a loan agreement with her in his personal capacity. Justice Lee Seiu Kin dismissed her claim, applying s. 14 of the Evidence Act.
'In The Interests Of Justice' As The New Test To Exclude Relevant Evidence In Singapore: Anb V Anc [2014] Sghc 172; Wan Lai Ting V Kea Kah Kim [2014] Sghc 180, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion to exclude evidence even when was found relevant under the EA. The main reason driving this jurisprudential inconsistency was that while the relevancy provisions in the EA were meant to provide exhaustive definitions of admissibility, Stephen’s then-revolutionary ‘inclusionary’ approach to relevance was simply at odds with modern conceptions of relevance and modern litigation practice. Thus, …
Singapore's New Discretionary Death Penalty For Drug Couriers: Public Prosecutor V Chum Tat Suan, Siyuan Chen
Singapore's New Discretionary Death Penalty For Drug Couriers: Public Prosecutor V Chum Tat Suan, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
The article offers information on the history, evolution and significance of the new discretionary death penalty legislation for drug couriers in Singapore under the application of the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA). It discusses the judicial decision of the Singaporean High Court in the case of Public Prosecutor v. Chum Tat Suan in which the Court convicted the accused with chareges of importing of more than 94.96g of diamorphine into Singapore that was punishable under section 33 of the MDA.
Redefining Relevancy And Exclusionary Discretion In Sir James Fitzjames Stephen’S Indian Evidence Act Of 1872: The Singapore Experiment And Lessons For Other Indian Evidence Act Jurisdictions, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
In many jurisdictions, the rules of evidence can often be instrumental in determining the outcome of a dispute. But to what extent can evidence law be controlled by codification, or is it better to leave its regulation and development to the judges via common law? In an attempt to bridge the gap between the rules of an antiquated evidence statute and the modern realities of practice, Singapore’s Evidence Act was amended in 2012. Certain relevancy provisions were amended to allow greater admissibility of evidence, while new provisions were introduced to act as a check against abuse. However, it will be …
The Future Of The Similar Fact Rule In An Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction: Singapore, Siyuan Chen
The Future Of The Similar Fact Rule In An Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction: Singapore, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
In yet another attempt to bridge the gap between the rules of an antiquated statute and the modern realities of practice, Singapore’s Evidence Act was amended in 2012. Certain relevancy provisions were amended to allow greater admissibility of evidence. While new provisions were introduced to act as a check against abuse, oddly some similar fact provisions were left intact. This paper explains why the 2012 amendments have rendered the future of these enactments very uncertain. This paper also suggests a number of tentative recommendations as regards future legislative change or judicial interpretation. To the extent that Singapore’s Evidence Act was …
The 2012 Amendments To Singapore's Evidence Act: More Questions Than Answers As Regards Expert Opionion Evidence?, Siyuan Chen
The 2012 Amendments To Singapore's Evidence Act: More Questions Than Answers As Regards Expert Opionion Evidence?, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
Singapore amended the expert opinion evidence provisions in its Evidence Act (EA) in 2012. The criteria for admissibility have been broadened, but the courts are now also expressly given the discretion to exclude relevant expert opinion evidence if it is ‘in the interests of justice’. This article explains why the 2012 amendments have raised more questions than answered them. First, Parliament did not appear to have properly appreciated the distinction—as conceptualised by the EA—between legal and logical relevance and relevance and admissibility. Second, it did not appear to have appreciated the distinction between general and specific relevance. Third, the introduction …
Revisiting The Similar Fact Rule In Singapore: Public Prosecutor V. Mas Swan Bin Adnan And Another, Siyuan Chen
Revisiting The Similar Fact Rule In Singapore: Public Prosecutor V. Mas Swan Bin Adnan And Another, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
The similar fact rule in Singapore—as with the law on any evidence law doctrine that can be found in both our Evidence Act and the common law—has required clarification for some time. This note, which discusses the latest local decision on the similar fact rule, considers if that decision is compatible with the Evidence Act and the various conceptualisations underlying the doctrine.