Improperly obtained evidence in criminal proceedings: An updated framework

• Main Authors: CHEN, Siyuan, KOH, Zhi Jia, SOON, Jian Wei Joel
• Format: text
• Language: English
• Published: Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University 2022
• Subjects: Evidence; criminal proceedings; Singapore; Asian Studies; Criminal Law; Criminal Procedure
• Online Access: https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/3701; https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/5659/viewcontent/ExpertOpinion_SALPrac_av.pdf
• Institution: Singapore Management University

The 2012 amendments to the Evidence Act “significantly broadened the admissibility criteria for expert evidence”; at the same time, the judicial discretion to deny admissibility of relevant expert opinion evidence was also introduced. This article considers the key developments pre- and post-amendments, and in doing so provides an updated framework for prosecutors and defence counsel alike to admit and challenge expert opinion evidence in criminal proceedings. Since it complements earlier articles in this series on similar fact and hearsay evidence, readers are assumed to be broadly familiar with the features of the Evidence Act, such as its admissibility paradigm, the distinction between general and specific relevancy provisions, and the limits placed by s 2(2) on invoking common law rules of evidence.