Section 60(1) Evidence Act 1950

Oral evidence shall in all cases whatever be direct, that is to say

a,b,c, d

General rule

Hearsay evidence is evidence which is not based on one’s senses

A witness is not allowed to testify to facts in issue or relevant facts which are based on the
perception of another person

Hersay evidence is not admissible to the court as it is indirectly because all evidence must be direct
in the sense that it must be given by those who perceived it.

Case Chandrasekharan v PP

The court held that the statement made to a witness repeated in court did not fall within the
hearsay rule as the statement was made not to prove the truth of its content but merely to show
that it was made.

Case Subramaniam v PP

Rule against Hearsay

Hearsay evidence is an out of court statement or document made by third party that is brought to
the court by a witness to prove the truth as to the matter asserted but the maker of the statement
or document is not present in court to verify its truth.

The act provides for the circumstances where out of court statements can be admissible such as
admission, confession, dying declaration and business record.

Such statements must be ‘relevant facts’

If they do not fall under any of the stated categories, they are considered írrelevant’and inadmissible
– hearsay

The exclusion of hearsay is because

Evidence cannot be tested in court

The makers are not available to give evidence

Subramaniam v PP

HELD: The Privy Council,

allowing his appeal opined that
the hearsay rule was not
infringed because his
evidence about what the
terrorists had said to him was
not
adduced in order to show that
the terrorists had said was true,
but in order to show that
threats had in fact been made.
* The statement was made not
to prove the truth of it but
merely to show that it was
made as explaining the
relevant conduct which was
relevant under s8 and the
witness’
state of mind under s14 of the
Act.
HELD: The Privy Council,
allowing his appeal opined that
the hearsay rule was not
infringed because his
evidence about what the
terrorists had said to him was
not
adduced in order to show that
the terrorists had said was true,
but in order to show that
threats had in fact been made.
* The statement was made not
to prove the truth of it but
merely to show that it was
made as explaining the
relevant conduct which was
relevant under s8 and the
witness’
state of mind under s14 of the
Act.
Held: The Privy Council, allowing his appeal opined that the hearsay rule was not infringed because
his evidence about what the terrorists had said to him was not adduced in order to show that the
terrorists had said was true, but in order to show that threats had in fact been made.

*the statement was made not to prove the truth of it but merely to show that it was made as
explaining the relevant conduct which was relevant under section 8 and the witness state of mind
under section 14 of the act.