DIRECT EVIDENCE V CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Posted on Thursday, December 13, 2012 by Unknown
Evidence is separated into two
categories:-
DIRECT EVIDENCE:
Evidence which is attested directly by
witnesses, things or documents.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
All other forms of evidence.
Although circumstantial evidence is weak,
it may still be possible to secure convictions.
For example in the case of Juraimi
Hussin & 2 Others v PP:
This case was based substantially on
circumstantial evidence. There was no direct evidence but the prosecution
adduced relevant facts:-
(a) The
decapitated body of the deceased was recovered from the house occupied by the
three appellants;
(b) The deceased’s death was caused by the
severance of his head by a weapon similar to the axe recovered at the same
premises;
(c) The day before his death, the deceased
withdrew RM300,000 from his bank accounts and the appellants embarked on a
spending spree, spending more than RM200,000, payment being made in RM1,000
notes which were in the same denomination of notes in which the deceased had
earlier withdrawn;
(d) The second and third appellants had financial
difficulties;
(e) Certain
items belonging to the deceased such as his identity card, watch and shoes were
found in the appellant’s possession;
(f)
The deceased was last seen alive in his car
with the second appellant
(g) The
body of the deceased was buried in a hole in the ground soon after he was
killed. This meant that the hole must have been dug earlier, leading to the
inference that there was a pre-arranged plan on the part of the appellants to
kill the deceased.
But, sometimes circumstantial evidence
may not be strong enough to even establish a prima facie case.
For example in the case of PP v Sarjit
Kaur:
The prosecution relied solely on
circumstantial evidence in attempting that the accused had murdered her husband.
Amongst the facts adduced:-
(a)
The accused was an unfaithful wife
(b)
The accused was ill-treated
(c)
The accused was in a position to benefit financially from the death of
her husband
(d)
Trances of blood stains were found on a dress belonging to the accused;
(e)
The accused had insisted that the maids together with the three children
go to bed earlier than usual
In deciding that the prosecution had
failed to establish a prima facie case, Visu Sinnadurai J:-
“…each of the strands of the
circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is so brittle that even when
tied together they are not strong enough for the prosecution to hold on to. In
fact, the entire string of strands does not withstand the weight, but merely
snap through lack of sufficient evidence, leaving the prosecution merely to be
clutching at straws, not ropes.”
SO WHAT IS THE STANDARD OF PROOF ON THE
PROSECUTION WHEN RELYING WHOLLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?
Kartar Singh v R
It
is necessary to distinguish between the effect of direct and of circumstantial
evidence. Where there is direct evidence, however slight, the jury are entitled
to accept it and the case should be left to them to decide. In the case of
circumstantial evidence the position is different. Here the evidence must be
that, if it is believed, there is no reasonable alternative to the guilt of the
accused. If it is anything less than this, it is no case at all.
Sunny Ang v PP
“… Adding them together, considering
them, not merely each one in itself, but altogether, does it or does it not lead you
to the irresistible inference and conclusion that the accused committed this
crime?...” The prosecution case is that the effect of all this evidence
drives you inevitably and inexorably to one conclusion and one conclusion only;
that it was the accused who intentionally caused the death of this young girl.
THERE ARE 2 TYPE OF QUESTION AND THE
QUESTION IS WHETHER THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION TEST IS HIGHER THAN BEYOND
REASONABLE DOUBT:-
Direct Evidence :- Beyond Reasonable
Doubt
Circumstantial Evidence :- Irresistible
Conclusion Test
This can be seen by the judgment in some
cases:-
Jayaraman
In our view the irresistible conclusion
test only seems to place on the prosecution a higher burden of proof than in a
case where it depends on direct evidence, for in fact to apply the one and one
only irresistible conclusion test is another way of saying that the prosecution
must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Syed Othman FJ:- it was only a play of
words.
McGreevy
It was the duty of the judge to make
clear to the jury that they must not convict unless they are satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.
In conclusion, it can be said that the
principle of “Irresistible Conclusion Test” is the same as the principle of
“Beyond Reasonable Doubt”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 Response to "DIRECT EVIDENCE V CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE"
-
Esther Tan Says....What do you think of Sunny Ang's case? Do you think that there is no reasonable alternative to the guilt of the accused as stated in Kartar Singh because in Sunny Ang's case, the body of the victim was never found.
Do you think that the "Irresistible Conclusion test" should apply?
Leave A Reply