Evidence - Similar Fact Evidence, Character Evidence, Opinion Evidence

SFE (Similar Fact Evidence)

  • Criminal Cases: 90% of exam questions.
  • Civil Cases: 10% of exam questions.

Criminal Cases

  • General Rule
  • Exceptions
    • Statutory
    • Common Law

General Rule

  • Evidence of conduct not pertaining to the current indictment is generally inadmissible.

  • Evidence showing a general criminal disposition is inadmissible.

  • Must relate to the current charge, and cannot relate to a general criminal disposition or propensity to commit crime.

Examples
  • Makin v Attorney General of New South Wales: Adducing evidence to show the accused is generally a bad person with criminal disposition isn't admissible.
  • PP v Yongsang: Evidence must relate to the present charge.
  • PP v Poon Soh @ Poon Chee Yuen: Ratio is consistent with Makin; evidence must have relevance to current charge.

Exceptions to Similar Fact Evidence

  • Statutory exceptions found in Evidence Act 1950.
    • Section 11(b)
    • Section 14
    • Section 15
  • Common law exceptions.

Statutory Exceptions: R v Raju

  • Sections 11(b), 14, and 15 are exceptions to the rule against admissibility of similar fact evidence.
  • Similar fact evidence can be associated with bad character evidence.
  • Exceptions are in addition to Makin against AG for New South Wales.

Common Law Exception

  • Boardman v DPP: Probative value of evidence outweighs the prejudicial effect.
  • Applied in cases like PP v Junaidi bin Abdullah.
  • Discuss 11(b), 14, 15, and the common law exception of Boardman in exams.
Key Considerations
  • Discuss evidence related to the facts.
  • Lifeline: Fact in issue and relevant facts.
  • Know the conditions for every exception.
  • Relevant cases: Junaidi, Azahan, Boardman.
    • Azahan v PP: Probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect; Makin & Boardman in addition to sections 14 & 15 of Evidence Act.
    • The court of appeal stated that even if the evidence is relevant under sections 14 & 15, the trial judge must still consider if the probative value of evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect.
    • Followed Botman and DPP, Junaidi and PP, Azahan against PP.
  • Imagine yourself as the judge to determine admissibility.

Section 14

  • Evidence is tendered for a specific purpose.
  • Provides for relevancy of facts to show the existence of a person's state of mind (mens rea).
  • The accused state of mind must be relevant.
  • Check if satisfied on the facts given.
  • Actus reus must be proved as well.
Explanation
  • State of mind must exist in reference to the particular matter.
  • Evidence of general habits or tendency is inadmissible.
  • Must show relevance under Section 14 before applying.
  • Look at questions, practice and real life reported cases.
  • Explanations are important as to how the whole provision works.
Case Examples
  • PP v Arumugam: If evidence wants to show a general disposition a general criminal disposition or propensity to commit a crime, it automatically becomes inadmissible.
  • If you fulfill provisions it's admissible. Courts must admit it.

Section 11(b)

  • Facts not otherwise relevant are relevant where they make the existence of fact in issue or relevant facts highly probable or improbable.
  • Relates back to probativeness.
  • Use 11(b) to admit similar fact evidence.
  • Legal arguments are arguments until case laws state that they're not.

Section 15

  • Tended for specific purpose.
  • Must be relevant.
  • Question: Was act accidental or intentional?
  • Series of similar occurrences.
  • Must be similar to the present indictment.
Case Example
  • Accused charged with killing someone by pushing them off a high-rise; previous acts of pushing others off high-rises.
  • Accused must have been involved in the similar occurrences.
  • Use it only to show men's rea. Actus reus must have direct evidence.
Considerations
  • The gap between occurrences doesn't negate similar occurrences.
  • Admissibility vs. Weight.
    • Admissibility is if you fulfill the provisions for the act, Courts must admit it.
    • What weight to be given is at the discretion of the court.
  • Discussed in Azahan v PP: even if evidence is relevant under section 15, Court will still need to look at probativeness.
Case Examples
  • PP v Mohammed Fairos: Distinguish Wang Yu Ming.
    • Wang Yu Ming – Drug trafficking case, was admissible as a similar fact evidence.
    • Roma Fairos – case said because there was no custody or control, there was no evidence accused had ever sold drugs.

Common Law Exception

  • Probative value outweighs the prejudicial effect.
    • Cases: Boardman, Junaidi, Azahan, Virun Kuti.
  • Apply to factual matrix or problem question.
  • Points to Discuss
    • Determination of probative value of the evidence of another misconduct.
    • Similarities to incidents.
    • Discuss probative value.
    • Defense, such as accident.
  • Evidence must assist to show a real material fact with relevance to the current issue.

Striking Similarity

  • Not essential for probative value.

  • Scarott: Not just the label, is the striking probative value the evidence must possess.

  • Cases

    • Barrington: Admitted evidence of surrounding circumstances even wasn't strikingly similar
    • Underlying link is more important than striking similarity.

  • It can just be about sharp objects. They did not be same screwdriver in all the incidents. It's because there can be multiple weapons, such as a screwdriver, a spike, or a dagger.

Probative Value
  • Very subjective determined under each circumstance of the case.
  • Test is whether evidence is sufficiently probative where evidence has to be weighed.
  • RN Smith vs Makin; discuss to rebut the defense of accident, look at gap time between events.
Prejudicial Effect
  • Very important principle in criminal justice for liberty of person, a person should not be put into jeopardy just because, you know, you have some evidence that or it's been shown that, you know, he has some criminal disposition and all that.
  • If it goes directly to show a particular crime, only then it should be taken into account.
  • You should not admit if similar fact or evidence is too prejudicial or it would unjust.

Application in Civil Cases

  • Discuss Section 11(b), 14, and 15.
  • Refer back to bad character. Bad character is inadmissible is where Your section 52 tells us that unless you can prove similar fact.
  • Common law cases are not many for civil cases; such as Mute Music Publishing against Divulge Limited.
    *Lord Danning in that particular case and he followed the principle from Bothman.

Character Evidence

  • Not admissible unless it comes within exception. Right? So you your evidence is basically you know, most of it is inadmissible.

  • Sections

    • 52-55 deal with party character.

  • Sections 52& 55, civil.

  • Sections 53 & 54, criminal cases.

  • Consider both disposition & reputation for general character.

  • Reputations

  • What others think of you. Correct?

  • Disposition

  • Habit

  • Refer to explanation Right to your sections for what what character means.

  • Must be relevant Right and when we say must be relevant you can look section fifty four two Right A where its talking about. Right? So that is relevant.
    Is Accused's Good Character relevant?
    Section 53
    Must be good character only relevant. Only good character is relevant is what clearly you can see.
    For criminal cases, if you want to put forward his good character, no problem. Ok it is relevant
    Right or if you can show credit. Right?
    What about Accused Bad Character?
    Is it relevant now? Section provides Bad Character irrelevent? But…it can become relevant.
    When? If good character evidence as been admitted previously.
    So mere casting of imputation on Presecution Witness in itself doesn't amount to giving evidence of good character. Must put positvely his good character first. then bad character could be relevant
    Cases for consideration
    Balas@ Gum.
    Longkon.
    Incensuous relationships.Wong foo hin
    54.2
    In cross examination, cannot ask question
    Tend to show of bad charecter UNLESS Court already know. But this if First time its shown. This from jones and Butter Razor case.
    Exceptions of.
    Section (a)
    (b)
    (c)
    Condition- What? What's the condition for each - IMPORTANT.
    General question is a problem. Based on 54.2 rarely essay based. Condition is important
    54.2 A
    This deals with a admissibility of a SFE- Right?
    How do i do this? I will show in cross examnation
    Other Offence- must be similiar!
    This to prove where accused has commited/convicted of another offence
    Admissible only to show hes guilty of current offence
    But you can do the same in cross exam- This is only if nature must be similiar.
    B
    Limb
    Person- OR thro LAYWER- ask question of presecution witness Right? Trending to show His own- GOOD CHARACTER
    Or giving evidence GOOD character.
    Is denying some thing- then use limb
    Limb 2
    Conduct of defence Genererally Imputes- Presecution? Right?
    And you must reem the most important thing- its only applies 54.2 If accsued is witness.
    Exception 2
    Giggens
    Lee
    bishop
    sylve
    your evidence for exception will stand right at the time to see whether
    determination can be made, or we have cases they can give you guidance because it also subject to public opinions right, and you see this is always
    discretion of the judge
    C.
    Where accused is given evidence of a persiion inducted with the same charge. MUST be same offence,.
    Court objective tests. Has accsued been accsued given the same c oh accsued has given the eviddence agaianst the of ther partgy..
    .Is court job - right,
    Prosecutioon arent keen to USE this
    Does Evidence act apply to civil cases? Yes!
    Sec 52 , character any party irrelevent unless if its relevant already.
    55- charecter of paintif relevant if its aciton to ascertain what the damage the plaitif is going to recieve.
    Pay more attentino to civil cases!

Opinion Evidence

  • It is generally not admissible
  • Bases on what and relevant facts must be based in section five.
    *Reliability un reliable.
  1. For court o judge for drawing inferencfrom facts .
    Exceptions from law! Known as exception.
    Expert Opinion.
    No Expert Opinion.
    51- ground of opinion!! To both expert or non expert.
    Look for section 45 for EXPERT.
    Expert evidence is RELEVENT - must be relevant!! To assist court to coming to the concution.
    Case
    Nick muhammad nik mact v chu kang
    They will be gazsted officer. Two types 6
    Mact
    Sa act.
    you just need to be qualified as well a gazsted officer. Right? and these are and i give you example like an if is a gazetted doctor so we we know that parliamentary has intended that
    Section 45.
    esct.
    To determine what is a fact. And an opinion.
    What u infer.from the facr.
    Foriegn Law
    We had hindu Law in post Frank German LAw.
    Sciene and Arts- dna pro file.
    ashuta hospital fufin
    you got the doctor in that hospital
    y Asian security paper.
    HAnd writting
    All 20 cases you to read
    Against the sang
    Tibbaland Mantri dalam
    Vishnu telagam all talkabout
    Look at section 73
    Whether expert on whting is is important or court to rule otherwise or court need expert because
    expert opinions not clusive but they have aid.
    Doctor vs Raj
    how do e decide a psron is an expert. Number one he states his qualificaiton and everyhing. then court will accepthim,
    Punkalan securites you g Z fund. You young against
    Right Xiao kim song
    Astana INternationale