Prima Facie Journey

Relevancy v Admissibility 

Relevancy as discussed before is facts that connected to one another in ways described under Chapter II of the Evidence Act (‘EA’) (i.e: Section 5 to 55) and also fact proven to be relevant to the judge under Section 136 of the same act.

Facts that are admissible are any facts in issue or relevant facts[1] introduced and received by a court as evidence in order to establish a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For an evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and fulfill further requirements of the provisions in EA.

Allgoodlawyers defined admissible evidence as admissible evidence - The documents, testimony or tangible items that a trial judge allows a jury or herself to consider during trial based on the authenticity and reliability of the evidence. [2]

Relevant evidence is generally admissible, but admissible evidence need not be relevant all the time.

Difference between Relevancy and Admissibility

Relevancy is a question of fact as is based on fact as stated under Section 3, where relevant evidence is defined as facts that are connected to another in ways described in Chapter II of the EA. Hence, to determine relevancy it is important to look at the facts itself. The lawyers will provide reason on why the evidence is regarded as relevant. Subsequently, this is where admissibility comes into place, where the judge will decide based on the provisions of EA or based on its discretion that whether their connections are justified under the provisions of EA. If it is relevant, the evidence will be rendered as admissible.

On the other hand, admissibility is a question of law. Admissibility of evidence is decided based on the provisions of the law that is EA or any other relevant written law, not from the deduction of the facts itself. In the case of Sris Chandra Nandy v Rakhalananda AIR 1941 PC 16 Lord Atkin ruled that “…it is not open for any judge to exercise a dispensing power , and admit evidence not admissible by the statute because to him it appears that the irregular evidence would throw light upon the issue...” Hence even if the fact is relevant in normal perception, but if it does not comply with the way it should be connected under the EA, it is not relevant and not admissible. Another case to back this proposition is Bibhati v Ramendara Narayan AIR 1947 PC 19 where Lord Thankerton held that “…the question of admissibility of evidence is a proposition of law…” While in Public Prosecutor v Dato’ Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No 3)[1999] Augustine Paul J held that “Question of admissibility of evidence are questions of law and are determinable by the judge.”

Another obvious difference is the types of law both relevancy and admissibility are. Relevancy is not a type of law. It is a connection between facts. While admissibility, is a type of procedural law which governs and determine on whether the connected fact are relevant in accordance to the laws on relevancy. In the case of Msimanga Lesaly v Public Prosecutor [2005], Gopal Sri Ram held that “…rules governing the admissibility of evidence are procedural and not substantive… Hence a rule against admissibility of evidence is a procedural safeguard to ensure that an accused receives a fair trial…”

Relationship between Admissibility and Relevancy

GENERAL RULE: All relevant evidence is prima facie admissible.

            The general relationship between admissibility and relevancy is stated in the general rule itself. Nonetheless, of course it is not without exceptions.  In the case of R v Turner [1975] Lawton J held that the exceptions to the rules are – hearsay and opinion evidence.

Also, in Lord Simon of Glaisdale ruling in R v Kilbourne [1973] while referring to the judgment in Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] it was held that evidence tending to show that the accused has been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered in the indictment, for the purpose of leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his criminal conduct or character to have committed the offence for which he is being tried is inadmissible although it is relevant (logically probative) to show motive and propensity to commit the crime.

Another exception is stated in the case of Kuruma v The Queen [1955] where it was held that if evidence is illegally obtained, the judge always has the discretion to disallow evidence if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against an accused. In Ghani v Jones [1969] the court also held the same in different wordings; the court would not allow it to be used in evidence against him if the conduct of the police is so oppressive that it would not be right to allow the crown to rely upon it.