Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Seminar 1: Evidence Law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - eg. defences saying search was illegal because warrant wasn't properly issued = s116 court presumes valid unless proven otherwise.
      - S116A: electronic records: presumed authentic unless proven otherwise.
        
        eg. if accused says bank statement PDF is fake, default is authenticity (often seen in cybercrimes, money laundering, digital communications)
    - - MCQs - 'necessity' / 'duress' / 'heat of moment' defences.
      - Once raised, for prosecution.
    - - eg. Penal Code saying 'whoever commits X shall be guilty... unless they were legally justified = proof on balance of probabilities for accused.
      - Alibi = most common -- if accused says 'I wasn't there, I was in Batam' - must product sufficient evidence that it was 'more likely than not.
        
        Balance of probabilities is lower than 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
    - - s104 - preliminary facts - eg. confession being voluntary? if you introduce this evidence, you must prove.
      - s106 - if you have 3kg of white powder in your bag, you need to explain facts within your special knowledge - evidential burden on accused.
      - MCQ:
        'who must prove voluntariness, confession, origin?' = s104
        'only accused knows fact' = s106
      - s106 is no legal burden - prosecution must still prove guilt
    - - Previous judgments (s40–44), character (s52–55), and confessions (s24–30).
        
        MUST KNOW RELEVANCE CATEGORIES FOR MCQs.
        
        'once got in a fight 10 yrs ago' generally irrelevant, unless s54 character is in issue.
    - - Connected with the issue: motive, preparation, previous/conduct, cause-effect, conspiracy, etc., are generally relevant if they support or contradict facts in issue.
        
        Often used to admit conduct, motive, intent.
      - S8 - 'accused had motive to kill' = motive is relevant
        or 'fled scene right after murder' = conduct relevant to intention.
    - - Start with this - if not fact in issue / relevant - inadmissible - cannot be relied upon by judge/jury as evidence.
    - - Fact 'in issue' = either by itself/connected with other facts
        That led to the existence etc. of rights, liabilities, or disabilities
        
        eg. Murder Trials -- facts in issue = did accused kill victim? with intent?
        eg. Theft Trials -- was there dishonest intention? did property belong to someone else?
        
        'Main facts' that the court must decide to resolve the case.
      - Relevant Fact
        
        Motive ss8 (eg financial interest in victim's death)
        Conduct ss8 (fled the country after murder = implied guilt)
        
        Functional definition (if it satisfies certain conditions)
        
        connected in any ways provided by ss6-25
      - 'Fact'
        
        Facts = anything perceived by senses, or any mental condition of which any person is conscious.
        
        ASK IF PERCIPTIBLE / MENTAL : then fact
        
        THEN: SUFFICIENT PROBABILITY? Determines if proved / disproved. Still unclear = not proved.
        
        Or does it fall under s6-55? (relevant fact)
        
        OR, LEGAL* ELEMENT TIED TO THE DISPUTE? (fact in issue)
        
        Mental states (he intended to kill/she was afraid)
        
        Perceptual inputs (he looked scared/she screamed)
        
        Physical events (x shot y)
      - Foundational
        
        No proved = neither of the above
        
        Disproved = court believes it not to exist / non-existence so non probable that a prudent man would act on assumption that it doesn't exist.
        
        Proved = court believes to exist or so probable that a prudent man ought, under circumstances, to act on supposition that it exists.
        
        Is 'X was angry' a fact? YES if there is evidence by shouting, facial expression showing consciousness of the state
    - - Applies to all judicial proceedings
      - EA is not absolute. It yields to other statutes - where statutes override and are inconsistent.
        BUT not every difference = inconsistency. Question is: can it *stand with the EA? Otherwise = harmonious.
- - - - Use when MCQ talks about reverse burden -- BUT SG courts are cautious - interpreted narrowly: don't uphold reverse burdens if they serve public interest / not arbitrary
    - - Use when MCQ is relevant to discrimination / unfairly targeting a group. BUT courts uphold statutory presumptions and burden reversals if group is rationally defined. (clear classification? linked to law's purpose?)
- - - - Included similar fact evidence.
- - - - NEVER DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE FROM SILENCE.
- - - - NO: unless official communication
      - BUT common law public interest immunity survived.
        
        Disclosure v Public Interest is a matter of judicial balancing.