'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC [2014] SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim [2014] SGHC 180
In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2015
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1321 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3273/viewcontent/InterestJusticeTestExcludeRelevantEvidenceSingapore_2015_pvoa.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion to exclude evidence even when was found relevant under the EA. The main reason driving this jurisprudential inconsistency was that while the relevancy provisions in the EA were meant to provide exhaustive definitions of admissibility, Stephen’s then-revolutionary ‘inclusionary’ approach to relevance was simply at odds with modern conceptions of relevance and modern litigation practice. Thus, more often than not, the Singapore courts would refer to the common law rules of evidence rather than the EA. |
|---|