About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

10 Int'l Comment. on Evidence 1 (2012)

handle is hein.journals/icmevid10 and id is 1 raw text is: Siyuan Chen* Redefining Relevancy and Exclusionary Discretion in Sir James Fitzjames Stephen's Indian Evidence Act of 1872: The Singapore Experiment and Lessons for Other Indian Evidence Act jurisdictions Abstract: In many jurisdictions, the rules of evidence can often be instrumental in determining the outcome of a dispute. But to what extent can evidence law be controlled by codification, or is it better to leave its regulation and development to the judges via common law? In an attempt to bridge the gap between the rules of an antiquated evidence statute and the modern realities of practice, Singapore's Evidence Act was amended in 2012. Certain relevancy provisions were amended to allow greater admissibility of evidence, while new provisions were introduced to act as a check against abuse. However, it will be argued that these amendments have changed the paradigm of the admissibility of evidence under the statute and have also done little to clarify existing ambiguities in the law. This paper explains why and, given the near-complete absence of case law that has interpreted the amendments, offers a few tentative suggestions on possible ways forward. To the extent that Singapore's Evidence Act was largely modelled after Stephen's Indian Evidence Act of 1872, Singapore's 2012 amend- ments may be of comparative interest to readers in a number of jurisdictions around the world particularly those in Asia such as Bangladesh, Brunei, Burma, Malaysia and Sri Lanka - these countries had adopted the iconic statute to varying degrees - and of course, to India itself. Many of these jurisdictions have also not made major amendments to their evidence legislation, and therefore there may be something to learn ahead of time from Singapore's experiment. Keywords: Indian evidence act, exclusionary discretion, relevance and admissi- bility, Singapore evidence law DOI 10.1515/ice-2014-0006 *Corresponding author: Siyuan Chen, School of Law, Singapore Management University, 60 Stamford Road, 04-11 Singapore, E-mail: siyuanchen@smu.edu.sg DE GRUYTER Int. Comment. Evid. 2012; 10(l): 1-53

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most