The position of psychological expert evidence under the Malaysian evidence act 1950

Ramalinggam A. Rajamanickam, Anita Abdul Rahim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. There is no concept of the 'free appreciation of evidence'. It will not necessarily suffice, in other words, to show that a given item of evidence is relevant to some disputed issue in the case. Relevance is clearly important, because no court will waste time listening to evidence which is manifestly irrelevant to any fact of the issues in the case; but regard must also be had to the questions of admissibility. Thus, this writing focuses on the relevancy of psychologists' evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950. This writing also addresses the issue of admissibility of psychologists' evidence and the courts' attitude towards the reception of expert evidence from psychologists. To date, the Malaysian courts are using strict approach with regards to the issue of permitting the psychologists to give expert testimony in any cases. This strict approach should be relaxed in order to allow the psychological evidence is given to help the judges in deciding any issue related to psychology.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)128-134
Number of pages7
JournalMediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Volume5
Issue number14
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2014

Fingerprint

expert
psychologist
evidence
testimony
legal proceedings
Psychological
Expert Evidence
witness
psychology
act
Psychologists
Expert opinion
Admissibility

Keywords

  • Admissibility
  • Expert opinion
  • Psychologist
  • Relevancy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Arts and Humanities(all)
  • Economics, Econometrics and Finance(all)

Cite this

The position of psychological expert evidence under the Malaysian evidence act 1950. / A. Rajamanickam, Ramalinggam; Abdul Rahim, Anita.

In: Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 14, 2014, p. 128-134.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9a0f956d60324971ad8d1b93d861234d,
title = "The position of psychological expert evidence under the Malaysian evidence act 1950",
abstract = "While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. There is no concept of the 'free appreciation of evidence'. It will not necessarily suffice, in other words, to show that a given item of evidence is relevant to some disputed issue in the case. Relevance is clearly important, because no court will waste time listening to evidence which is manifestly irrelevant to any fact of the issues in the case; but regard must also be had to the questions of admissibility. Thus, this writing focuses on the relevancy of psychologists' evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950. This writing also addresses the issue of admissibility of psychologists' evidence and the courts' attitude towards the reception of expert evidence from psychologists. To date, the Malaysian courts are using strict approach with regards to the issue of permitting the psychologists to give expert testimony in any cases. This strict approach should be relaxed in order to allow the psychological evidence is given to help the judges in deciding any issue related to psychology.",
keywords = "Admissibility, Expert opinion, Psychologist, Relevancy",
author = "{A. Rajamanickam}, Ramalinggam and {Abdul Rahim}, Anita",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n14p128",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
pages = "128--134",
journal = "Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences",
issn = "2039-9340",
publisher = "MCSER-Mediterranean Center of Social and Educational research",
number = "14",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The position of psychological expert evidence under the Malaysian evidence act 1950

AU - A. Rajamanickam, Ramalinggam

AU - Abdul Rahim, Anita

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. There is no concept of the 'free appreciation of evidence'. It will not necessarily suffice, in other words, to show that a given item of evidence is relevant to some disputed issue in the case. Relevance is clearly important, because no court will waste time listening to evidence which is manifestly irrelevant to any fact of the issues in the case; but regard must also be had to the questions of admissibility. Thus, this writing focuses on the relevancy of psychologists' evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950. This writing also addresses the issue of admissibility of psychologists' evidence and the courts' attitude towards the reception of expert evidence from psychologists. To date, the Malaysian courts are using strict approach with regards to the issue of permitting the psychologists to give expert testimony in any cases. This strict approach should be relaxed in order to allow the psychological evidence is given to help the judges in deciding any issue related to psychology.

AB - While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. There is no concept of the 'free appreciation of evidence'. It will not necessarily suffice, in other words, to show that a given item of evidence is relevant to some disputed issue in the case. Relevance is clearly important, because no court will waste time listening to evidence which is manifestly irrelevant to any fact of the issues in the case; but regard must also be had to the questions of admissibility. Thus, this writing focuses on the relevancy of psychologists' evidence under Section 45 of the Evidence Act 1950. This writing also addresses the issue of admissibility of psychologists' evidence and the courts' attitude towards the reception of expert evidence from psychologists. To date, the Malaysian courts are using strict approach with regards to the issue of permitting the psychologists to give expert testimony in any cases. This strict approach should be relaxed in order to allow the psychological evidence is given to help the judges in deciding any issue related to psychology.

KW - Admissibility

KW - Expert opinion

KW - Psychologist

KW - Relevancy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84903989997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84903989997&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n14p128

DO - 10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n14p128

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84903989997

VL - 5

SP - 128

EP - 134

JO - Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

JF - Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

SN - 2039-9340

IS - 14

ER -