Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- Exclusionary discretion (2)
- Singapore (2)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Discretionary death penalty (1)
- Drug trafficking couriers (1)
-
- Exclusion of evidence (1)
- Indian Evidence Act of 1872 (1)
- Indian evidence act (1)
- Interests of justice (1)
- International Court of Justice (1)
- International adjudication (1)
- Judicial discretion (1)
- Misuse of Drugs Act (1)
- Presumption of innocence (1)
- Principle of free admissibility (1)
- Probative value and prejudicial effect (1)
- Relevance and admissibility (1)
- Singapore evidence law (1)
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
The Corroborative Effect Of Lies, Siyuan Chen
The Corroborative Effect Of Lies, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus [2010] SGHC 7; Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus v PP [2011] SGCA 52. Overview of the case: In PP v Kamrul Hasan Abdul Quddus, the accused was charged with murder. He and the deceased had been in a tumultuous relationship, and the main evidence that connected the deceased’s death to the accused, apart from the fact that her body was found in the construction site that the accused worked at, was that DNA taken from her rectum tested positive for semen that matched his DNA.
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
Siyuan CHEN
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.
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
Siyuan CHEN
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 …
Re-Assessing The Evidentiary Regime Of The International Court Of Justice: A Case For Codifying Its Discretion To Exclude Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
Like many international tribunals, the International Court of Justice subscribes heavily to the principle of free admissibility of evidence. Neither its statute nor rules impose substantive restrictions on the admissibility of evidence, whether by way of exclusionary rules or an exclusionary discretion. Instead, the court’s practice has been to focus on evaluating and weighing the evidence after it has been admitted. There are certainly features of the ICJ that sets it apart from domestic courts and arguably justify such an approach: the ICJ is for settling disputes between sovereign states; it does not use a typical fact-finding system; its rules …
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
Siyuan CHEN
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 …
Reliability And Relevance As The Touchstones For Admissibility Of Evidence In Criminal Proceedings: Muhammad Bin Kadar V Pp [2011] 3 Slr 1205 [Case Note], Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
The Court of Appeal in Muhammad bin Kadar v PP [2011] 3 SLR 1205 (“Kadar”) formally recognised the judicial discretion to exclude evidence as an integral part of the law on criminal evidence in Singapore. This discretion, the court held, would help ensure that all evidence coming before the court would be as reliable as possible. While this commentary agrees that the foundational basis for the exclusionary discretion doctrine is desirable, it suggests that there are difficulties with the application of the doctrine. An alternative approach that works around the difficulties is canvassed for consideration.
The Judicial Discretion To Exclude Relevant Evidence: Perspectives From An Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction, Siyuan Chen
The Judicial Discretion To Exclude Relevant Evidence: Perspectives From An Indian Evidence Act Jurisdiction, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
Stephen’s ground-breaking Indian Evidence Act contained ideas that appear unfamiliar in the context of modern rules of evidence. Singapore is an Indian Evidence Act jurisdiction which has retained those ideas, such as the non-distinction between relevance and admissibility, the framing of exclusionary rules in inclusionary terms, and the prohibition against relying on common law developments inconsistent with the Evidence Act. These peculiarities should have presented obstacles to the applicability of the common law concept of the judicial discretion to exclude relevant evidence, but this has not been the case. In this article, I first suggest why Singapore courts might have …
Dealing With Unreliable Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Dealing With Unreliable Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor was the culmination of a case described by the Court of Appeal as “extraordinary” and “one of the longest in the Singapore judiciary’s annals”. Two brothers, Muhammad and Ismil, were alleged to have robbed and murdered an old woman in her own flat and in the presence of her bedridden husband. The brothers were both convicted by the High Court and sentenced to death. In acquitting Ismil of all charges, the Court of Appeal rendered a 207-paragraph judgment that canvassed many issues, but space constraints limits this note’s treatment to the issue of whether …
'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
Siyuan CHEN
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
Siyuan CHEN
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.
Admitting Previously Undiscovered Evidence In Subsequent Proceedings As Permissible Hearsay Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Admitting Previously Undiscovered Evidence In Subsequent Proceedings As Permissible Hearsay Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
No abstract provided.
A Rare Interpretation Of S 33 Of The Evidence Act, Siyuan Chen, Zhaoxiang Daniel Liu
A Rare Interpretation Of S 33 Of The Evidence Act, Siyuan Chen, Zhaoxiang Daniel Liu
Siyuan CHEN
No abstract provided.
Admitting Previously Undisclosed Evidence In Subsequent Proceedings As Permissible Hearsay Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Admitting Previously Undisclosed Evidence In Subsequent Proceedings As Permissible Hearsay Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Siyuan CHEN
No abstract provided.
Reliability And Relevance As The Touchstones For Admissibility Of Evidence In Criminal Proceedings, Siyuan Chen, Nicholas Poon
Reliability And Relevance As The Touchstones For Admissibility Of Evidence In Criminal Proceedings, Siyuan Chen, Nicholas Poon
Siyuan CHEN
The Court of Appeal in Muhammad bin Kadar v PP [2011] 3 SLR 1205 (“Kadar”) formally recognised the judicial discretion to exclude evidence as an integral part of the law on criminal evidence in Singapore. This discretion, the court held, would help ensure that all evidence coming before the court would be as reliable as possible. While this commentary agrees that the foundational basis for the exclusionary discretion doctrine is desirable, it suggests that there are difficulties with the application of the doctrine. An alternative approach that works around the difficulties is canvassed for consideration.