Section 27 of Evidence Act ( exception to confession rule) PDF

Preview

Summary

GOI CHING ANG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1999] 1 MLJ 507 & FRANCIS ANTONYSAMY v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2005] 3 MLJ 389 Section 27 of EA 1950 How much of information received from accused may be proved 27. (1) When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person ac...

Description

GOI CHING ANG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1999] 1 MLJ 507 & FRANCIS ANTONYSAMY v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [2005] 3 MLJ 389 Section 27 of EA 1950 How much of information received from accused may be proved 27. (1) When any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of a police officer, so much of that information, whether the information amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. Section 24 of EA 1950 24. A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him. GOI CHING ANG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1999] 1 MLJ 507 Facts •

The appellant was convicted of two charges under the ISA for having in his possession firearms and ammunition without lawful authority.

•

The prosecution's case rested mainly on the evidence of PW5 and PW7 who testified on the discovery of the incriminating firearms and ammunition in the appellant's rented house as a result of information given by the appellant himself during his interrogation by PW5 ('the s 27 information')

•

During the trial, ruled that the information was admissible in evidence under s 27.

•

The appellant appealed to the Federal Court.

Facts •

The defence case was that the appellant denied that the pistols belong to him but owned by his friend.

•

After the arrest, the appellant was tortured and as he could not stand the beatings, he’d told the police that the pistols were in his house.

•

Defence relied on Md Desa, statement made under s 27 is inadmissible if it was made involuntarily.

•

Thus, D submit that the statement made by accused is inadmissible and the sentence should be quashed.

Issue Whether the statement can be admitted under section 27

-

Is section 27 should be read together with section 24?

-

Involuntariness of statement under section 27

Harris v DPP [1952] 1 All ER 1044, at 1048 with approval, that “…in a criminal case, the judge always has a discretion to disallow evidence if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against an accused HELD The facts and circumstances of the case show that the information obtained has an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings ( torture being one of the factor) The statement should be excluded as an evidence. Conviction was quashed. Francis Antonysamy v Public Prosecutor [2005] 3 MLJ 389 Facts •

The accused was charged with an offence of murder and was found guilty.

•

The investigation in this case commenced with the discovery of the headless body of the deceased in Ladang Kim Swee Leong by Gopal.

•

In the course of the investigation the accused supplied certain information to the police which led to the discovery of some exhibits in this case

Facts First statement He told ASP Mohd Sabri bin Muhammad (PW17) ‘Tanam kepala Ali di kebun kelapa sawit Charuk Puting’. Issue the admissibility of the information supplied by the accused under s 27 of the Evidence Act 1950 (‘s 27’) Held •

Section 27 is independent from 24. established rule that information relating to facts discovered in consequence of a confession rendered inadmissible by reason of being involuntary is still admissible under s 27

•

Goi Ching Ang v Public Prosecutor [1999] 1 MLJ 507 that information supplied under s 27 which has been found to be involuntary may be excluded by the court in the exercise of its discretion.

•

the exclusion of the evidence is discretionary the exercise of the discretion will depend on the facts of each case

Held

•

“In my opinion the degree of involuntariness that can be said to be sufficient to exclude s. 27 statement in the exercise of the discretion of the court must be balanced against the fact that involuntariness is not a condition of admissibility of such a statement. Therefore the circumstances of involuntariness must indeed be extraordinary in order to exclude a 60 statement on a ground which, in the first place, does not affect its admissibility in law.”

•

In other words, not all s.27 statement will be excluded in all instances where it was supplied involuntarily. In the event it could be shown that the s.27 information obtained has an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings the learned judge could reject it.

•

In this case, the defence has not cross examined or provide evidence to show that the statement was made involuntarily or any other evidence that convinces the court that the statement made was in contravention of principle of justice.

•

However, the first statement was excluded as evidence because it didn’t fall within s 27 ( not the statement who led to discovery of crime)

•

Court admitted second and subsequent statements and upheld the conviction against accused.

Conclusions ● Md Desa Bin Hasim v PP:subject to the voluntariness principle ● Goi Ching Ang v PP : gives discretion to the trial judge to exclude statements which are prejudicial to an accused even though the evidence is technically admissible. ● Francis Anthony Samy v PP: s 27 and 24 operates independently. Also, the court must balance its discretion to refuse admissibility....