An updated account on the similar fact rule
The number of local decisions on the similar fact rule has increased quite significantly in the last few years. However, fundamental questions, ranging from the foundational (such as the existence or operation of any residual judicial discretion to exclude relevant evidence) to the discrete (such as...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2024
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sljlexicon/38 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sljlexicon/article/1036/viewcontent/An_Updated_Account_on_the_Similar_Fact_Rule.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | The number of local decisions on the similar fact rule has increased quite significantly in the last few years. However, fundamental questions, ranging from the foundational (such as the existence or operation of any residual judicial discretion to exclude relevant evidence) to the discrete (such as whether the rule works differently in civil proceedings as compared to criminal proceedings, and how the rule operates vis-à-vis related rules of evidence), continue to be answered in rather different, arguably irreconcilable ways by the courts. This article analyses some of the recent key decisions in the light of established precedents and proposes that tweaks around the edges may not suffice to restore coherence between all existing rules pertaining to similar fact. Short of rewriting the statute, the best starting point to take things forward remains appraising the text and structure of the relevant statutory provisions and understanding the principles that undergird them. |
|---|