On Relevancy & Admissibility

Legal relevancy is founded on law, i.e. in the provisions laid down from S 6 to S 55 of the Evidence Act. These provisions state what facts are relevant according to the law.

An example is found in S 7. In Aziz bin Muhd Din v PP, the fact that the sexual complainant had spent a night at the flat with the accused merely showed opportunity. Similarly, fingerprints of the defendants shows opportunity and is thus relevant. In Sidik Sumar, the court held that evidence of footprints at or near the scene of the crime or that the footprint came from a particular place or lead to a particular place is relevant under S 7. Another example would be when there is a fact necessary to introduce a relevant fact as laid down in S 9.

Admissibility is a question of law and refers to whether evidence may be tendered on a fact in issue, a relevant fact or a collateral fact. S 6 provides for the admissibility of statements that are part of the same transactions as the fact in issue. The court in PP v Haji Kassim stated that whatever is logically probative is not necessarily admissible in evidence, unless it is so under the Evidence Act.

S 136 states that the court decides on the issue of admissibility. This provision also shows that ‘relevancy’ is the test for admissibility. In PP v Shee Chin Wah, it was held that though an evidence may not be part of the charge and may be prejudicial to the accused, it may be admitted, the main consideration being relevancy of the evidence. In Alcontara Ambross Anthony v PP the court said “it is the duty of the judge to admit all relevant evidence and to exclude all irrelevant evidence”. For example, the court in R v Walton exercised their powers when the majority of judges decided that the statement ‘Hello Daddy’ which was tendered to show that the person on the other end of the line was Walton was inadmissible.

The Federal Court in Desa Samudra Sdn Bhd v Bandar Teknik Sdn Bhd and 5 others said “In the law governing documentary evidence, as in oral evidence, three matters come to mind- relevancy, admissibility and weight. They must be considered in that order. Only evidence which is relevant ought to be admissible. Irrelevant evidence should be rendered as inadmissible and the matter ends there. Now, relevant evidence which is rendered admissible is still subject to the element of weight. The court can either attach due weight to the evidence, or some weight, little weight or no weight at all”.