Motive under section 8
Posted on Wednesday, November 07, 2012 by Esther Tan
Section 8 of the Evidence Act 1950 deals with three principal facts, that is motive, preparation and conduct. The first part deals with relevancy of motive and preparation while the second part deals with relevancy of conduct. I will only discuss motive in this particular post.
So.. let's begin with what is motive? Is motive the same with intention?
Motive is that which induces a person to do a particular act. Every voluntary act has motive. Motive and intention must be distinguished. A person's intention is his decision to do or not to do a particular act, but his motive is the reason for forming that decision. For example, when a poor woman with a child steals a loaf of bread, her intention is to steal but her motive may be to feed her child.
In criminal cases, motive is very important and material especially when a case depends entirely on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. Of course when there is direct evidence pointing directly to the accused's guilt of committing the crime, motive is no longer necessary to sustain the conviction.
In Nath Singh v R, the accused was tried for the murder of KARNAIL SINGH. Evidence was led to show that Karnail Singh was extorting money - $$ from the accused on the grounds that he knew the accused had killed one BHAN SINGH. This fact was admitted to show motive for this murder. Court held that such evidence is admissible even though the evidence suggests the commission of another crime by the accused.
HOWEVER - motive is NOT ADMISSIBLE to show that the accused was likely to have committed the offence or to infer bad character of the accused.
In contrast, referring to Malaysia's case - Wong Foh Hin v PP (1964), court still admit the evidence of motive even though the appellant raised issue that the evidence infer bad character of teh
The appellant was convicted of the murder of his daughter. Evidence was admitted at the trial of an incident 3 months before the daughter's death where the wife had complained to the village headman that the appellant had "interfered with his daughter and that the matter had been disposed of by the village headman stating that if this occurred again the matter would be reported to the police." On appeal the sole question was whether the evidence of the above incident and also evidence of a similar incident just before the daughter's death were properly admitted.
Appellant:
(i) the evidence of the incidents which suggested an incestuous relationship between the appellant and his daughter amounted to evidence of bad character and was therefore inadmissible;
(ii) and alternatively if it was admissible the trial Judge should have exercised his discretion to exclude it on grounds that its pre-judicial effect far outweighed its probative value.
Judgment:
The Federal Court allowed the previous incestuous relationship of the accused with the deceased to prove motive for the murder.
Grounds of judgment:
i) Court admitted the evidence on previous incestious relationship based on section 8 of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 43) which provides "Any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant fact.
In fact, court had referred to Section 54 that deals with evidence of character:
"In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused person has a bad character is irrelevant, unless evidence has been given that he has a good character, in which case it becomes relevant.'
The annotation to that section at page 374 of Monir (4th Edition) shows that there are Indian authorities (not available in Jesselton) which establish that this section does not make inadmissible evidence which is otherwise admissible. Part of that annotation reads:
"It should, however, be remembered that evidence which is otherwise relevant cannot become irrelevant merely because, besides being relevant on the point on which it is tendered, it incidentally shows the accused to be of a bad character. If the evidence of motive incidentally discloses the bad character of the accused, the evidence does not, for that reason, become irrelevant."
ii) Strong and convincing evidence of motive will probably have a high evidential value in all circumstances, but that must be especially so in a case like this, where there is only circumstantial evidence of the murder itself. There is no doubt, therefore, that the trial Judge was correct in not exercising his discretion in favour of excluding this evidence on the ground that its prejudicial effect would be out of proportion to its evidential view.
Thus, in my opinion, I agree with the Federal Court's decision above. Motive is especially important in cases where there is only circumstantial evidence to point the guilt of the accused. Just because evidence of motive happened to disclosed bad character of the accused, it does not render the evidence irrelevant for that reason. Moreso in this case where it shows that the accused (father) had the motive to kill the deceased (daughter) based on previous record of interfering with his daughter. Besides, section 52 had stated very clearly that the issue of the accused's bad character is irrelevant here unless evidence has been given to show the good character of the accused but it is not given here. Therefore, there is no issue on bad character here. The evidence of motive is admissible and have high evidential value to convict the accused. Indeed, circumstantial evidence together with STRONG & CONVINCING evidence of motive is strong enough to convict the accused of the crime he committed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No Response to "Motive under section 8"
Leave A Reply