Recent developments concerning similar fact evidence in Singapore: Pushing the boundaries of admissibility – PP v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh [2017] 3 SLR 66; Micheal Anak Garing v PP [2017] 1 SLR 748
This piece addressestwo recent local decisions on similar fact evidence that demonstratethe court’s difficulties with reconciling the provisions of the Evidence Actwith a more flexible approach that can be developed through the common law.These two cases extend the basis for admitting similar fact e...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2579 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4537/viewcontent/Eunice_Chua___PP_v_Ranjit_Singh_Gill__case_note___Published_on_e_First_7_February_2018_.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | This piece addressestwo recent local decisions on similar fact evidence that demonstratethe court’s difficulties with reconciling the provisions of the Evidence Actwith a more flexible approach that can be developed through the common law.These two cases extend the basis for admitting similar fact evidence beyond ss11(b), 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act.The application of the common law balancing test comparing prejudicial effectand probative value has also been broadened to consider factors such as the timingof the objection to the evidence and whether a co-accused wishes to rely on thesimilar fact evidence. Yet, the cases do not discuss the conceptual andnormative justification for so doing, taking us further down the path of pragmatismover principle. |
|---|