Criminal Procedure and Law of Evidence

Added on - 28 May 2020

  • 6


  • 1373


  • 0


  • 0


Showing pages 1 to 3 of 6 pages
Running head: CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCECriminal Procedure and Law of EvidenceName of the StudentName of the UniversityAuthor Note
1CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCETopic C: Statements made by an accused person and its admissibility in CourtLegal Framework of Police StatementsAccording tosection 258(2) of Criminal Procedure Code 2010, any statement made to apolice officer by any person, such statement shall not be used as evidence provided suchstatement is made to police officer below the rank of a sergeant. As persection 22 (1) of theCriminal Procedure Code, in an investigation, a police officer is entitled to verbally examineany person who appears to him to be aware of the facts and circumstances of the case.According tosection 23(1) of the CPC 2010,if any person is charged with an offenceduring any investigation, or a police officer informs such person that he may be prosecuted foran offence, he must be served with a notice in writing that he is charged with or that he may beprosecuted for certain offence. If the accused person remains silent about any matter in defenseonly to reveal in trial, there are less chance that the judge would rely on the information providedby such accused person, thus, affecting the case in court.According tosection 258 (1) of the CPC 2010any person charged with offence, whomade a statement, such statement shall be admissible and used as an evidence at trial. It isirrespective whether such statement is made in writing or verbal; whether it is made after orbefore the person is charged and whether it was made during, any investigation carried out by theenforcement agency. Moreover, if the witness consents to act as witness himself, the statementsmay be used for challenging the credit of the accused person.As persection 280 of the Criminal Penal Code, a magistrate may record any statementthat is made before him prior to the commencement of the trial. However, the Magistrate mustnot record any such statement that he believes to have not been answered voluntarily. As was
2CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND LAW OF EVIDENCEobserved inMohamed Bachu Miah v PP [1992] SGCA 56, any confession of the accusedrecorded under this section that is presented before the court as evidence, shall not becomeadmissible if the court is of the opinion that the magistrate has failed to comply with this section.According toAct and Funding(2017), the court shall require evidence regarding the factwhether the accused making the statement has duly recorded the same and only on satisfaction,the evidence shall become admissible in court as evidence. However, the court shall take thestatement in evidence only of it is satisfied that the failure of the magistrate to record thestatement in compliance with this section did not have an adverse impact on the defense of theaccused on the merits. As stipulated undersection 259(1), any statement made verbally or inwriting, whether it amounts to a confession or not made during the course of police investigationsimply implies that the only impediment to admissibility of statement is the voluntariness rule.Act and Funding (2017) states thatthevoluntariness ruleis stipulated undersection258(3) of the Codewhich states that the court shall not admit any statement made by the accusedperson. This is when the court deems that such statement has been made by any threat orpromise, inducement as was observed inPah Kay Keong v PP [1995] SGCA 84. Further, if thecourt deems that if any authority has allured him that making such statement shall enable him toobtain advantage or avoid any perilous evil with respect to the proceedings against him, suchstatement shall not be admissible in evidence. This is evident from the ruling inPP v Ismil binKadar [2009] SGHC 84where the court described the applicability of the voluntariness rule.The reasons that render the statements made by the accused as inadmissible includeunreliability on involuntary statements as they apparently infringe the right to silence orcontravene the privilege against self-incrimination. The statements made by the accused persons
You’re reading a preview

To View Complete Document

Become a Desklib Library Member.
Subscribe to our plans

Unlock This Document