Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

Publisher’s Version

Publication Date

1-2015

Abstract

In 2012, Singapore’s venerable Evidence Act (EA), which is based on Stephen’s Indian Evidence Act of 1872, underwent major amendments for only the third time in 120 years. Previously, conflicting case law had created long-standing confusion as to whether the Singapore courts possessed any discretion to exclude evidence even when was found relevant under the EA. The main reason driving this jurisprudential inconsistency was that while the relevancy provisions in the EA were meant to provide exhaustive definitions of admissibility, Stephen’s then-revolutionary ‘inclusionary’ approach to relevance was simply at odds with modern conceptions of relevance and modern litigation practice. Thus, more often than not, the Singapore courts would refer to the common law rules of evidence rather than the EA.

Keywords

Indian Evidence Act of 1872, exclusionary discretion, interests of justice, probative value and prejudicial effect, Singapore

Discipline

Asian Studies | Evidence

Research Areas

Law, Society and Governance

Publication

International Journal of Evidence and Proof

Volume

19

Issue

1

First Page

67

Last Page

72

ISSN

1740-5572

Identifier

10.1177/1365712714566374

Publisher

Blackstone Press

Copyright Owner and License

Author

Creative Commons License

Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.

Additional URL

http://doi.org/10.1177/1365712714566374

Share

COinS