Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sec. 17(1): An admission is a statement which suggests any inference as to the fact in issue or
relevant fact.
- The inference could be an inference of guilt, liability, non-guilt, or non-liability of a
person.
Sec. 18: A person whose statement may amount to an admission with the meaning of Sec. 17,
and is thus, relevant and admissible is:
- A party to a proceeding (Sec. 18(1): The person can be a plaintiff or defendant to the
case.
- Parties who have proprietary or pecuniary interest (Sec. 18(3)): A person who derives
an interest in the case by virtue of the subject matter.
The effect of Sec. 18 is that any admission made by persons not listed is inadmissible, but the
admission of an independent third party, if relevant, can be admitted under Secs. 19 and 20.
- Sec. 19: An admission made by a person who is not party to the suit, but whose liability
is necessary to prove as against any party to the suit. (Illustration to Sec. 19)
- Sec. 20: An admission by a person, not party to the suit, but whom a party to the suit
has expressly referred for information. (Illustration to Sec. 20)
Sec. 21:
- The general rule is that an admission is inadmissible if it is found to be favouring the
person who made it. Thus, a person cannot use his own admission to work in his
favour.
- However, the provision provides three exceptions in which an admission can be
proved by or on behalf of the person making it:
- When the person making it is dead
- When the admission consists of a statement of
- State of mind
- Made at the time the state of mind exists
- Accompanied by conduct
- If it is relevant otherwise than as an admission
Sec. 22: An admission regarding contents of a document is inadmissible unless the original
document is produced or the party gives secondary evidence as to the contents of the
document.
Sec. 23: No admission is relevant if the parties have agreed through an express condition that
evidence of it should not be given.
- Where the provision deals with settlement negotiations, any communication leading
up to a settlement will be inadmissible as evidence in court where it has been labelled
with the term “without prejudice”.
- Thus, where parties admit to a fault or liability in order to reach a settlement,
such an admission is protected from disclosure in court if they are made
“without prejudice”.
- Threat: When a person tells another that he will do ‘something’ to the other,
if he does not follow what is asked of him.
- Aziz Muhamad Din v PP: The advice of a father telling his son to admit
to the charge was held to amount to a threat. The fact that the words
used were advisory in nature do not weaken their effect as even the
gentlest threat will taint a confession (make it inadmissible).
- The inducement, threat or promise must have reference to the charge against the
accused
- Poh Kay Keong v PP: ‘Reference to the charge’ is not limited to matters directly
relating to the charge as it suffices if the inducement threat or promise refers
to any matters which could have an effect on the accused in respect of the
charge.
- Ong Hock & Anor v Rex: An inducement relating to rewards or retribution in
the afterlife, though it may have led to a confession, does not fall within the
ambit of Sec. 24.
- The inducement, threat or promise must be sufficient to give the accused grounds
for supposing that by making the confession, he would gain an advantage, or avoid
any evil of a temporal nature.
- The accused must have honestly believed that he would gain an advantage or
avoid a negative outcome if he voluntarily confesses. This belief must
therefore be examined by looking into the expression used to induce the
making of the confession, which is thus, a question of fact in each case.
- Where all the conditions have been established, it would prove that the confession
was not made voluntarily, thus rendering it inadmissible under Sec. 24.
- Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim v PP: The classic test of the admissibility of an accused’s
confession should be applied in a manner which is part objective, part subjective (as
established in DPP v Ping Lin)
- The objective limb is satisfied if there is an inducement, threat or promise.
- The subjective limb is satisfied when the inducement, threat or promise
operates on the mind of the accused through hope of escape, or fear of
punishment connected with the charge.
- If the accused had already made up his mind to confess, the subjective
limb would not be satisfied.
- Md Desa Hashim v PP in affirming the classic test: Confession is born of a free mind
and will, and is not tainted by any pressure or other vitiating elements.
- Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim v PP: A confession must be made voluntarily in the sense that
it was not obtained by fear or prejudice or hope of advantage created by a person in
authority, or by oppression.
- This case establishes the inclusion of ‘oppression’ under Sec. 24.
- Where the burden of proof in a criminal case is on the prosecution to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the confession was voluntarily made (Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim),
the accused merely has to create suspicion in regards to the making or recording of
the confession (Juraimi Husin v PP).
- The prosecution’s failure to discharge the burden will allow a separate trial to be
held (voir dire) where evidence may then be tendered to either, support or rebut, the
presence of inducement, threat, promise, or oppression upon the accused in obtaining
the confession.
- PP v Law Say Seck: A mere possibility that the confession was not made voluntarily is
insufficient to allow its rejection, but a probability would suffice to dictate its
rejection.
- Lim Seng Chuan v PP: The rationale of a voir dire is to provide fairness to the accused.
- The failure to hold a trial within a trial in a situation where the admissibility of the
confession is challenged is fatal.
Sec. 25: In order for a confession to be proved as against the accused, it must have been made
to a police officer who is above the rank of an Inspector.
Sec. 26: A confession obtained while the accused is in police custody (regardless of the police
rank) is inadmissible, unless other written law provides for it, or if it was made in the
immediate presence of a Sessions Court judge or a magistrate.
- Eng Sin v PP: ‘Custody’ does not necessarily mean formal arrest, it is sufficient that the
accused cannot go as he wishes.
- Sambu v R: A person is said to be in ‘custody’ if he is in a state of being guarded, where
his movements are watched closely to prevent his escape.
- PP v Haji Kassim: Following an attempted suicide, the accused was taken to the
hospital by a police officer. He then confessed to a doctor, but the confession was
inadmissible as he was still considered to be in police custody.
- The information was received while the accused was in police custody
- A fact must be discovered in consequence of the information received
- Wai Chan Leong v PP: In order for the provision to apply, the fact must be the
consequence, while the information is the cause of its discovery.
- If there is discovery without any evidence of information, the provision would
not apply.
- Gurusamy v PP: The accused was brought by the police to a place, and by
following footprint tracks, they came to the spot where the stolen goods were
stacked. The discovery was inadmissible as the appellant never made any
statement or give information that led to the discovery of the stolen items.
- The police cannot turn a recovery into a discovery. Thus, if the police had any
prior knowledge of the existence of the thing discovered, then the provision
would not apply.
- PP v Lie Sam Seong: There was evidence that the police had prior knowledge
of the ammunition before the alleged “discovery” took place after information
was given by the accused, thus causing the provision to not be applicable.
- If the police had prior knowledge of the fact, but had not identified the exact
and specific location, any subsequent information given by the accused
regarding the fact would be inadmissible.
- PP v Basri Salihin: The accused was arrested at a bus stop and taken in for
questioning. He was then taken to a stall near the bus stop, where the police
recovered an envelope containing heroin in a wooden bin by the stall. The
envelope was said to be found as a consequence of information given by the
accused. However, he denied giving any information, and alleged that the
police had already known the existence of the drugs when they asked him
where they were during the questioning. Held: The accused was then
acquitted.
- PP v Kanapathy Kupusamy: During question, the accused did not answer the
questions asked by the police. Instead he led the police party to a room where
the drugs were recovered. Held: The information was inadmissible as there
was no evidence of information being given by the accused that led to the
discovery of drugs.
- Only the information that leads to the discovery of the fact is admissible
- Where a statement contains both a confession and information leading to the
discovery of a fact, only the part of the statement containing the information
is admissible under Sec. 27.
- Pulukuri Kottaya v Emperor: The accused confessed to the police, “I stabbed
Sivayyah with a spear. I hide the spear in a yard in my village and I will show
the place.” The court found that the first part of the statement which speaks
about the guilt of the accused, is not admissible, whereas the second part
which led to the discovery of the spear is admissible under Sec. 27.
- PP v Lee Kim Seng: Where the accused had confessed to unintentionally
committing murder and that he could show the police where it happened, the
police led the accused to the site, and a body was found. Held: Only the
information received that led to the discovery of the body was admissible
under Sec. 27.
- For such reason, the actual words of the information given must be recorded.
- Sum Kum Seng v PP: Where the accused was charged for being in control of
firearms, the prosecution relied on evidence that the appellant had admitted
burying the weapons somewhere and offered to show the place to the police.
The evidence was argued to be inadmissible as it was not the actual words
used by the appellant. Held: Although there is no strict necessity in law, both
the decisions referred to and common sense stress the desirability that the
actual words must be recorded somewhere.
- Once the requirements are fulfilled, the court may then take into consideration the
confession against the co-accused.
- Strong evidence against the co-accused is required before the confession implicating
the co-accused can be considered.
- If the accused confesses with the intention to clear his name at the expense of
implicating the other in a joint trial, the confession will not be taken into consideration
against the co-accused.
- The provision does not apply to situations where an accused is giving evidence
implicating the co-accused from a witness box.
Retracted confession
- Yap Saw Keong v PP: An accused person can be convicted on his own confession, even
when it is retracted, if the court is satisfied of its truth.
- A confession found to be relevant can still be admitted as evidence, despite it having
been retracted, if the court is satisfied that it was voluntarily made by the accused.