Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
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 …
'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, …