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.
Indian Evidence Act of 1872, exclusionary discretion, interests of justice, probative value and prejudicial effect, Singapore
Asian Studies | Evidence
Law, Society and Governance
International Journal of Evidence and Proof
'In the Interests of Justice' as the New Test to Exclude Relevant Evidence in Singapore: ANB v ANC  SGHC 172; Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah Kim  SGHC 180. (2015). International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 19, (1), 67-72. Research Collection School Of Law.
Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1321
Copyright Owner and License
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License.