Recent Developments Concerning Similar Fact Evidence in Singapore - Pushing the Boundaries of Admissibility: Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh [2017] 3 SLR 66; Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 SLR 748

(2018) 30 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 367

17 Pages Posted: 28 Mar 2018 Last revised: 1 Jul 2019

See all articles by Eunice Chua

Eunice Chua

Singapore Management University

Date Written: February 19, 2018

Abstract

This piece addresses two recent local decisions on similar fact evidence that demonstrate the court’s difficulties with reconciling the provisions of the Evidence Act with a more flexible approach that can be developed through the common law. These two cases extend the basis for admitting similar fact evidence beyond ss 11(b), 14 and 15 of the Evidence Act. The application of the common law balancing test comparing prejudicial effect and probative value has also been broadened to consider factors such as the timing of the objection to the evidence and whether a co-accused wishes to rely on the similar fact evidence. Yet, the cases do not discuss the conceptual and normative justification for so doing, taking us further down the path of pragmatism over principle.

Keywords: Similar Fact Evidence

Suggested Citation

Chua, Eunice, Recent Developments Concerning Similar Fact Evidence in Singapore - Pushing the Boundaries of Admissibility: Public Prosecutor v Ranjit Singh Gill Menjeet Singh [2017] 3 SLR 66; Micheal Anak Garing v Public Prosecutor [2017] 1 SLR 748 (February 19, 2018). (2018) 30 Singapore Academy of Law Journal 367, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3126077

Eunice Chua (Contact Author)

Singapore Management University ( email )

55 Armenian Street
Singapore, 179943
Singapore

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
17
Abstract Views
178
PlumX Metrics