Welcome to Prima Facie Blog! Flying Bat

What is 'Relevant Facts'?

Posted on Monday, November 12, 2012 by ft



Before going deeper into the issue of relevancy, it is pertinent for us to know what relevant facts itself.

The word ‘relevant’ is interpreted in Section 3 of the Evidence Act 1950 (‘EA’) itself as a fact that is relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any ways referred to in the provisions of the Evidence Act relating to the relevancy of facts.

While, the word 'fact' is defined (in the same provision) as 'means and includes --
(a) anything, state of things or relation of things capable of being perceived by the senses;
(b) any mental condition of which any person is conscious'

Below is the simple equation on what kind of fact is considered relevant under the Evidence Act:



Ways referred to in the provisions of the Evidence Act is specifically stated in Chapter II under the heading of ‘Relevancy of Fact’ of the Evidence Act, which starts from Section 5 until Section 55 of the evidence Act. The divisions of provisions in the chapter are as follows:

      1.      General (s5-16)
      2.      Admissions and Confessions (s17-31A)
      3.      Statements by persons who cannot be called as witnesses (s32-38)
      4.      How much of a statement to be proved (s39)
      5.      Judgment of court when relevant (s40-44)
      6.      Opinions of third persons when relevant (s45-51)
      7.      Character when relevant (s52-55)

It is important to know that in order for a judge to determine on the    relevancy of a fact, it must be sure that the facts are connected in the ways    provided under Chapter II of the Evidence Act, unless, even if it is normally    conceived as relevant but is not connected in ways provided in Chapter, then    it is in reality is not relevant under the law, thus it is not a relevant fact.    Chapter II serve as a guide for legal practitioners to determine the relevancy    of facts.


Another definition of relevant fact is also given YA Hamid Sultan in his Book Janab’s Key To Criminal Procedure and Evidence as a fact which has connection with another.
 
Sir James Stephen in his Digest defines ‘relevant’ as;
“any two facts, to which it is applied are so related to each other that according to the common course of vents one either taken by itself or in connection with other facts prove or renders probable the past, present, or future existence or non-existence of the other.”

Sir James Stephen further divided relevant facts into several categories, which is more or less the same with the divisions already provided for in the Evidence Act, which are;
  

      1.      Facts logically connected to the facts in issue/relevant facts
      2.      Admissions and confessions
      3.      Statements by persons who cannot be called as witness
      4.      Statement under special circumstances
      5.      Judgment in other cases
      6.      Opinion of a third person
      7.      Evidence as to character

In the case of Director of PP v Kilbourne, Lord Saimon of Glaisdale defined relevant evidence as;

“Evidence is relevant if it is logically probative/disprobative of some matters which requires proof. The term logical probativeness does not of itself express the element of experience. The relevant evidence is evidence which makes the matter which requires proof more or less probable.”

While in R v Hare, Thesigner J referred to the James Stephen Digest in defining relevant evidence, as,

“the word relevant is used in the sense in which it is defined in Stephen’s Digest… Relevant to all intents and purposes are synonymous with probative values.”

Admissible Evidence

The justification that a relevant fact may be admitted as evidence is provided under Section 5 of the Evidence Act. Section 5 Stated that;

Evidence may be given in ay suit or proceeding of the existence or non existence of every fact in issue and of such other facts as are hereinafter declared to be relevant, and of no others.

This provision had restricted the admissibility of fact unless it is a fact in issue or it is a relevant fact. The relevant fact must comply with Chapter II of Evidence Act for it to be considered as a relevant fact under the act and for it to be allowed to be admitted as evidence.

Other than, it may also be on the discretion of the judge under Section 136 of EA to decide on whether a certain fact is relevant or not if the facts is not connected in none of the ways provided under the provisions in Chapter II of the EA. Section 136(1) stated that;

"When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the court may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner alleged face, if proved, would be relevant; and the court shall admit the evidence if it thinks tat the fact, if proved would be relevant, and not otherwise." 

In the case of Public Prosecutor v Dato' Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim (No.3) [1999] the court touched on the power of judge to decide on the admissibility of evidence;

 " The judge is empowered to allow only such evidence to be given as is, in his opinion, relevant and admissible and in order to ascertain the relevancy of the evidence which a party proposes to give, the judge may ask the party o give evidence, in what manner the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant, and he may then decide as to admissibility."

Hence, the rule is not so rigid that the it does not accept any facts not connected in the way stated in the act at all as it also gives power to the judge to decide himself in situation where the fact does not fall under under any provisions in Chapter II on the relevancy of the fact.

Important of relevancy of fact in ensuring that a fact is admissible.
 
Relevancy of a fact is important to ensure that evidence is admissible. The relevancy of evidence will render an evidence to be admissible even though it was obtained by illegal manners.
According to Chong Siew Fah CJ in the case of Thavanathan a/l Subramaniam v PP,

“… the cardinal rule relating to relevancy is that, subject to the exclusionary rules, all evidence which is sufficiently relevant to the fact in issue is submissible.”

While in R v Hare, Thesigner J held that,

“…evidence which is sufficiently relevant to an issue before the court is admissible and all that is irrelevant/ insufficiently relevant should be excluded”

These judgments show the importance of relevancy of evidence in guaranteeing that an evidence is admissible in court.

Relevancy of fact may also  ensure that a fact is admissible although it is obtained illegally There are many cases which involves law enforcements officers which failed to follow the procedure laid by the law in obtaining evidences but the court, despite the defence counsel arguments on importance of public policy (Holmes J in Supreme Court of USA), police committing offence to detect other’s offence (Brannan v Peek),  upholding the judicial integrity (SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor v PP ) etc, still rules that the evidence are admissible as long as it is relevant and that the court is not concerned on how the evidence is obtained. Nonetheless, the judge are still given the discretion to disallow the evidence to be admitted if it thinks that it would operate unfairly against the accused, though this is rarely exercised by the judges. The aggrieved may still bring an action in trespass against the offender in a civil court to get damages from the illegal search, though it cannot use it as an argument to disrupt or strike out the case in the criminal trial where the evidence obtained illegally are admitted to the court.

The leading case in this issue is Kuruma v The Queen [1955] where the accused was illegally arrested. The accused was convicted of being in unlawful possession of amunition, which was discovered in a search of his person by a police officer below the permitted rank. On the issue of whether the evidence is admissible, Lord Goddard held that;

“The test to be applied in considering whether the evidence is admissible is whether it is relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not concerned with how the evidence is obtained…the Judge always have the discretion to disallow evidence if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against an accused.. If for instance some admission of some piece of evidence had been obtained from the defendant by a trick, no doubt the judge might properly rule it out.”

The judgment of this case is followed almost all of the Malaysian cases and in a case on this issue before the decision in the Kuruma case (i.e Saminathan v PP [1937]), the court still rules the same.  Other Malaysian cases which follows the same rule includes, Saw Kim Hai v R [1956], Cheng Swee Tiang v PP (1964), PP v Seridaran (1984) and SM Summit Holdings Ltd & Anor v PP [1997].

Conclusion
Relevancy is concerned with facts connected with each other in ways provided by Chapter II of the EA. Relevancy of Fact is important in order for a fact to be rendered admissible in a court of law. Relevant fact may also render an evidence which is obtained illegally to be admissible where the court will overlook on the manner on how the evidence is obtained and admit the evidence.

4 Response to "What is 'Relevant Facts'?"

.
Nada Says....
9 December 2012 at 18:15

From Section 5 of EA, it can be understood that there are only two kinds of facts may be proved which is facts in issue and relevant facts. A relevant fact under Section 5 to 55 may not be admissible if the other Sections of the Act do not permit it to be received by the Court. As an example is hearsay evidence which is excluded even though it is relevant. So it can be said, the question of admissibility is one of law and which is determined by the Court. In that case, an illegally obtained evidence is still relevant and admissible in court.

Leave A Reply

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)