Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Singapore (3)
- Exclusionary discretion (2)
- Contractual interpretation (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Deferred Prosecution Agreements (1)
-
- Discretionary death penalty (1)
- Drug trafficking couriers (1)
- Electronic evidence (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Exclusion of evidence (1)
- Indian Evidence Act (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)
- Legal education (1)
- Litigation (1)
- Misuse of Drugs Act (1)
- Modern legal practice (1)
- Presumption of innocence (1)
- Principle of free admissibility (1)
- Probative value and prejudicial effect (1)
- Psychiatric Evidence (1)
- Relevance and admissibility (1)
- Similar Fact Evidence (1)
- Similar fact (1)
- Similar fact evidence (1)
- Singapore evidence law (1)
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in Law
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.
2018 Changes To The Evidence Act And Criminal Procedure Code - The Criminal Justice Reform Bill And Evidence (Amendment) Bill, Siyuan Chen, Eunice Chua
2018 Changes To The Evidence Act And Criminal Procedure Code - The Criminal Justice Reform Bill And Evidence (Amendment) Bill, Siyuan Chen, Eunice Chua
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
Various portions of the Evidence Act and Criminal Procedure Code were amended in 2018 vide the Criminal Justice Reform Bill and Evidence (Amendment) Bill; this was a continuation of a series of gradual but important changes to the criminal justice system that had begun in 2010 when the old Criminal Procedure Code was replaced. This legislation comment outlines and briefly analyses some of the most substantive changes brought about by the 2018 amendments: the video-recording of interviews in criminal proceedings; the introduction of a psychiatrist panel to regulate the reception of evidence from expert psychiatric witnesses in criminal proceedings; and …
Recent Developments Concerning Similar Fact Evidence In Singapore: Pushing The Boundaries Of Admissibility – Pp V Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh [2017] 3 Slr 66; Micheal Anak Garing V Pp [2017] 1 Slr 748, Eunice Chua
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
This piece addressestwo recent local decisions on similar fact evidence that demonstratethe court’s difficulties with reconciling the provisions of the Evidence Actwith a more flexible approach that can be developed through the common law.These two cases extend the basis for admitting similar fact evidence beyond ss11(b), 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act.The application of the common law balancing test comparing prejudicial effectand probative value has also been broadened to consider factors such as the timingof the objection to the evidence and whether a co-accused wishes to rely on thesimilar fact evidence. Yet, the cases do not discuss the conceptual …
'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, …
Re-Assessing The Evidentiary Regime Of The International Court Of Justice: A Case For Codifying Its Discretion To Exclude Evidence, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
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 …
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 …
Educating For The Future: Teaching Evidence In The Technological Age, Denise H. Wong
Educating For The Future: Teaching Evidence In The Technological Age, Denise H. Wong
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
The advent of the technological age has had significant effect on litigation practice, none more so than in the area of evidence gathering and presentation in court. A significant proportion of evidence that is gathered for both criminal and civil matters is now electronic in nature, and this necessitates a change in the way that lawyers think and advise on evidential issues. It is argued here that rather than simply focusing on principles relating to the admissibility of evidence in court, the traditional course on evidence law should be modified to equip students with an intellectual framework that conceives of …
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
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
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 …
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
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
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.
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.
The Corroborative Effect Of Lies, Siyuan Chen
The Corroborative Effect Of Lies, Siyuan Chen
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
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.
A Common Law View Of Causation, Science And Statistical Evidence In The Courtroom, Basil C. Bitas
A Common Law View Of Causation, Science And Statistical Evidence In The Courtroom, Basil C. Bitas
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
In March 2010, the Australian High Court in Amaca Ltd v Ellis [2010] HCA 5 (“Amaca”) moved assertively to clarify the approach of the Australian courts to causation in cases of lung disease involving multiple pathogens. The court demonstrated sensitivity to both the scientific and legal inquiries while reaffirming the obligation of plaintiffs to prove causation based on the balance of probabilities. In examining the plaintiff’s statistical evidence, the court established important guideposts regarding the proper use and interpretation of epidemiology in the courtroom, highlighting both the relevance and limits of such proof regarding causation and the satisfaction of the …
Juror Comprehension And The Hard Case: Making Forensic Evidence Simpler, Mark Findlay
Juror Comprehension And The Hard Case: Making Forensic Evidence Simpler, Mark Findlay
Research Collection Yong Pung How School Of Law
The complexity/comprehension nexus as it impacts on juror decision-making is addressed in the particular context of prosecution-led DNA evidence. Such evidence is for jurors the subject of pre-trial preconceptions, and is notoriously difficult to present and argue before a jury. The article looks at the comprehension of forensic evidence by jurors, a task qualified by the opinion of legal professionals whose responsibility it is to present and interpret such evidence in adversarial contexts.Jurors were surveyed post-verdict in trials where forensic evidence featured in circumstantial cases. These insights into comprehension were qualified by contesting views of legal professionals, and critical reflections …