The position of similar fact evidence in Malaysia

Ramalinggam A. Rajamanickam, Saw Wei Siang, Anisah Che Ngah, Mohamad Rizal Abd Rahman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Generally, evidence of bad character of a person especially accused in a case cannot be tendered as it is inadmissible. However, there are few situations where the evidence of bad character may be adduced as relevant in a case if it is provided under the ambit of Evidence Law. Among others, similar fact evidence may be given in a case although it will amount to a bad character of the accused. This article addresses the issue of relevancy of similar fact evidence in Malaysia by referring to the provisions under the Evidence Act 1950 and the decided cases. This article further explains the factors to be considered by the courts before admitting similar fact evidence against the accused in Malaysia. The article found that “striking similarity” which has been used as a main component in admitting similar fact evidence in Malaysia has been relaxed by the Malaysian apex court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Roslan bin Desa. The article also found that though the Evidence Act 1950 does not contain any direct provisions relating to similar fact evidence, sections 14 and 15 have been used as similar fact provisions in Malaysia.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)539-543
Number of pages5
JournalMediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Volume6
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2015

Fingerprint

Malaysia
evidence
accused
act
human being

Keywords

  • Admissibility
  • Bad character
  • Evidence law
  • Relevancy
  • Similar fact evidence

ASJC Scopus subject areas

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

Cite this

The position of similar fact evidence in Malaysia. / A. Rajamanickam, Ramalinggam; Siang, Saw Wei; Che Ngah, Anisah; Abd Rahman, Mohamad Rizal.

In: Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 6, No. 4, 01.07.2015, p. 539-543.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1b39ac2f7a7d4ba3ae20d34729046cb6,
title = "The position of similar fact evidence in Malaysia",
abstract = "Generally, evidence of bad character of a person especially accused in a case cannot be tendered as it is inadmissible. However, there are few situations where the evidence of bad character may be adduced as relevant in a case if it is provided under the ambit of Evidence Law. Among others, similar fact evidence may be given in a case although it will amount to a bad character of the accused. This article addresses the issue of relevancy of similar fact evidence in Malaysia by referring to the provisions under the Evidence Act 1950 and the decided cases. This article further explains the factors to be considered by the courts before admitting similar fact evidence against the accused in Malaysia. The article found that “striking similarity” which has been used as a main component in admitting similar fact evidence in Malaysia has been relaxed by the Malaysian apex court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Roslan bin Desa. The article also found that though the Evidence Act 1950 does not contain any direct provisions relating to similar fact evidence, sections 14 and 15 have been used as similar fact provisions in Malaysia.",
keywords = "Admissibility, Bad character, Evidence law, Relevancy, Similar fact evidence",
author = "{A. Rajamanickam}, Ramalinggam and Siang, {Saw Wei} and {Che Ngah}, Anisah and {Abd Rahman}, {Mohamad Rizal}",
year = "2015",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4p539",
language = "English",
volume = "6",
pages = "539--543",
journal = "Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences",
issn = "2039-9340",
publisher = "MCSER-Mediterranean Center of Social and Educational research",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The position of similar fact evidence in Malaysia

AU - A. Rajamanickam, Ramalinggam

AU - Siang, Saw Wei

AU - Che Ngah, Anisah

AU - Abd Rahman, Mohamad Rizal

PY - 2015/7/1

Y1 - 2015/7/1

N2 - Generally, evidence of bad character of a person especially accused in a case cannot be tendered as it is inadmissible. However, there are few situations where the evidence of bad character may be adduced as relevant in a case if it is provided under the ambit of Evidence Law. Among others, similar fact evidence may be given in a case although it will amount to a bad character of the accused. This article addresses the issue of relevancy of similar fact evidence in Malaysia by referring to the provisions under the Evidence Act 1950 and the decided cases. This article further explains the factors to be considered by the courts before admitting similar fact evidence against the accused in Malaysia. The article found that “striking similarity” which has been used as a main component in admitting similar fact evidence in Malaysia has been relaxed by the Malaysian apex court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Roslan bin Desa. The article also found that though the Evidence Act 1950 does not contain any direct provisions relating to similar fact evidence, sections 14 and 15 have been used as similar fact provisions in Malaysia.

AB - Generally, evidence of bad character of a person especially accused in a case cannot be tendered as it is inadmissible. However, there are few situations where the evidence of bad character may be adduced as relevant in a case if it is provided under the ambit of Evidence Law. Among others, similar fact evidence may be given in a case although it will amount to a bad character of the accused. This article addresses the issue of relevancy of similar fact evidence in Malaysia by referring to the provisions under the Evidence Act 1950 and the decided cases. This article further explains the factors to be considered by the courts before admitting similar fact evidence against the accused in Malaysia. The article found that “striking similarity” which has been used as a main component in admitting similar fact evidence in Malaysia has been relaxed by the Malaysian apex court in the case of Public Prosecutor v Mohamad Roslan bin Desa. The article also found that though the Evidence Act 1950 does not contain any direct provisions relating to similar fact evidence, sections 14 and 15 have been used as similar fact provisions in Malaysia.

KW - Admissibility

KW - Bad character

KW - Evidence law

KW - Relevancy

KW - Similar fact evidence

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84936094136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84936094136&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4p539

DO - 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4p539

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84936094136

VL - 6

SP - 539

EP - 543

JO - Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

JF - Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences

SN - 2039-9340

IS - 4

ER -