ADMISSION (pengakuan)

 Exception to rule of hearsay, can be use as long as it relevant to the case

 It is substantive evidence that admissible in court
 Section 17 – 31 Evidence Act

a) Section 17 – It is a statement, oral

b) Section 17(2) – confession is an admission that can be made any time by aa person
about the committing offence

© R v Wong Ah Khin – admission and confession is under same family

© Sahoo v The State of Uttar Pradesh
Admission is species, confession sub-species

ADSMISSION EVIDENCE
- Formal admission (s58)
- Informal admission (s17(1))
- © MA Clyde v Wong Ah Mei
Ada accident between bicycle and car, and the girl lodge a police report
- Informal can be use to build our case
- FIR can be used as informal evidence

REQUIREMENT

- Must be accepted or rejected

- Based on personal knowledge
CAN PLEAD GUILTY BE EVIDENCE
- can be evidence

THE ISSUE OF ASMISSION & WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATION

PRIVILEFE
CONFESSION (in criminal)
 Admission statement, confession adalah admission
 Section 17 EA 1950
“confession is an admission made at any time by a person accused of an offence,
stating (nyatakan, PC) or suggesting (menyarankan, NPC) the inference that he
committed that offence”

A) TYPES
 Plenary Confession
- Common confession
- Eg: I killed him

 Non-Plenary Confession
- Incriminating statement
- Eg: I am the owner of the gun which caused the death

© Anandagoda v R
Lecturer having an affair with a student, and she got pregnant. The lecturer brought her in
the middle of the road and crashed her with a car to cover the case. Lecturer refuse to
confess. Ada bukti lain yang ditemui, so the issue is whether that indirect evidence can be
fall under indirect confession.

- This case court recognized non-plenary confession and followed by few cases.
- Khalid bin Abdul Hamid v PP, Chan Kin Choi v PP

© Shahrul Hafizam Samsul Kamal v PP

Emphasized on the admissible evidence of plenary and non-plenary as this case refer to
Anandagoda. Dan ini merupakan keterangan yang substantive dan trite (mantap). Can be
use as an evidence no harm.

© Ghulam Hussain v R
Statement bawah sedtion 164 Code of Criminal Procedure
Statement is admission, not confession
Malaysia kita section 115 CPC
 - Confession under section 21 EA 1950
- Not necessary to police it can be to anyone

© PP v Othman A aziz
Confess to the restaurant he worked

VOLUNTARY CONFESSION
 Section 24 – confession made by inducement, threat or promise where it is
irrelevant in criminal proceedings by the person in authority is irrelevant
 © Ibrahim v The King & © DPP v Ping Lin – not accepted uless proven voluntary
 Veera Ibrahim v Maharashta
- Stament must be confession
- By accused
- Has been made to person in authority (it is very subjective) Lee Kim Ching
- Confession obtain by any inducement or threat or promise must have
connected with the charge
- The inducement must be sufficient in opinion of court and would gain
advantage and avoid any evil in reference to proceeding

B) ISSUE OF OPPRESSION
- Subjective in nature
- © Datuk Mokhtar Hashim v PP – partly from section 24 EA 1950
- Eg: tak dapat makan, lebam, tak bagi ubat, interrogation in not suitable time etc, the
gender of the police in interrogating accused
- © PP v Chan Cjoon Keong, Per Faiza Thamby Chik JC highlighted few relevants
facts to be identify to consider as an oppression.
a) Characteristic of the accused
b) Period of time during he was questioned
c) Length of time during custody
d) Whether he was given time to rest and refreshment

- R v Wilson – prolonged interrogation in small room

- Section 24 must read with section 28
“if the other party able to rebut the 3 types under section 24, then it can be used as
confession.”
- © Bhagirath v State of MP
- Section 24 and Section 29 too
 “other certain situation, promise can be made / trick to get confession (promise of
secrecy”
- Refer case R v Thompsy

CONFESSION MADE TO POLICE

- Section 25 EA 1950
‘Confession to police officer below the rank of inspector is not admissible.’
- Probationary Police Inspector (below rank)
- © R v Wong Ah Kin – Police officer is police officer
- Ada amendment di CPC
“Section 17(2), 21, 24, 25, 26 EA 1950 & section 113 CPC” – no longer applicable
confession to police officers regardless the rank
- Section 113 CPC strict only in defence also can be under DDA, Kidnapping, Money
Laundery, MACC
- Section 26 EA 1950
‘confession during custody cannot be used’
- © Lee Yew Seng v PP
Confession before the court

CONFESSION EVENTUALLY LEAD TO DISCOVERY OF MORE EVIDENCE

- We use confession to discover something

- Section 27 EA 1950
‘Whatever being discover from the confession can be used’
- Exception section 24, 25, 26 – mana mana confession boleh diterima asalkan we
discover something dari confession tu
- Condition used section 27:
a) Info must be received from accused
b) Person must be in custody of a police officer at the time the info were given
c) Fact must have been deposed to as having discovered
- Section 27 does not bound to section 24.
- © PP v Krisna Rao a/l Gurumurthi – court ada power nak admir atau tidak tapi
kalau prejudice lagi tinggi akan di reject
- © Pp v You Poh Khoon – even leading to the discovery tapi prejudice is more
higher
CONFESSION EVENTUALLY IMPLICATE CO - ACCUSED

- Section 30 EA 1950
‘where more than one person jointly for the same offence , we can use confesion’
- Requirement:
(a) Person must be tried jointly
(b) Confession must be proved (refer section 24)
(c) Must be done affecting the maker and the co – accused

© Bhuboni Sahu v The King

Confession must be made according to section 17(2) (semua ke sorg je?)

- Value of accomplice confession sangat lemah.

Singapore
© Chin Seow Noi v PP
Credible to be evidence under section 3

Malaysia
© Indran v PP
Credible to be evidence under section 3

DO WE NEED CORROBORATION EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT UNDER SEC 30

- No need
- © PP v Yeoh Teck Chye
Distinguished testimony by accomplice and co – accused
- PP v Puvaneswaran

RETRACTED CONFESSION
- © Yap Sow Keong & Anor v PP
- © Osman & Anor v PP – can use retracted confession against the maker