Similar Fact Evidence Malaysia

In singapore similar fact evidence is principally dealt with under section 14 and 15 of the ea.

Similar fact evidence malaysia. This paper will provide a review of the different schools of thought on the interpretation of section 11 b as a gateway to admit similar fact evidence. This article addresses the issue of relevancy of similar fact evidence in malaysia by referring to the provisions under the evidence act 1950 and the decided cases. Prima facie similar fact evidence which is a species of bad character evidence and reveals the accused person s pervious reprehensible behaviour is inadmissible in malaysia on the grounds that it would be prejudicial. What is similar fact evidence.

It is actually referring to an accused person s pervious misconduct so called bad character other than that which gives rise to the offence charged. 11 b and the court held in 8 other occasions the same offences were done and it was highly probable that these two occasions were done in the same. The development of law concerning similar fact evidence has been focused on these 2 main considerations. Similar fact evidence similar fact evidence also applies to civil cases nahar singh v pang hon chin 1986 2 mlj 141 where the judge referred to learned authors of kerr on fraud mistake 7th edition at p.

Similar fact evidence sfe in malaysia part 1 what is sfe. The sfe is violence against the spouse. The principle of similar fact evidence has been well outlined in section 11 b section 14 and section 15 of the malaysian evidence act 1950. Evidence of facts which are similar to the fact in issue but which are unconnected to the charge.

The evidence that was brought in was that in a number of other occasions he had endorsed the documents without checking whether the person already had a valid licence in malaysia. 674 that evidence of similar frauds on the part of the defendant committed on other parties in the same manner are admissible in evidence if they tend to prove the motive or. The approach adopted by the ea is simply to face prejudicial evidence head on at the stage of admissibility. For example a is charged under an offence of murdering b and before being charged a did murder somebody else like c and d thus the act towards c and d is considered as similar fact evidence.

The primary objective of this paper is to provide a definitive answer on the suitability of the application of section 11 b as an exception to the rule against similar fact evidence in malaysia. Its scope and application by the malaysian courts have always come under close scrutiny and comments as the malaysian judiciary often adopts a critical and analytical approach when deciding on the question of admissibility of such evidence.