Relevancy and weight of evidence

7/24/2019 Relevancy and weight of evidence

1/9

Not all relevant evidence is of equal valwhen determining disputed facts. Some

very important and thus of high cogencweight. Other relevant evidence is mucless signicant, and thus of low weight.

As per Lord Steyn inR v A

(No. 2) [2001 AC 45:Relevance and sufciency o proo aredierent things.


2/9

With reference to thabove, discuss the

distinction beteenre!evanc" and ei#ht

evidence.


3/9

!"A# $S %&L&'AN()* %&L&'AN# &'$+&N(&

act that is relevant to prove the fact in issue to -e su-mitted to the court.

&vidence having any tendency to mae the e/istence of any fact that is of consequence to tdetermination of the action more pro-a-le or less pro-a-le than it would -e without the evid

or evidence to -e relevant, there must -e some logical connection -etween it and the fact prove or disprove.

%&L&'AN()

One of the concept that is very important in understanding the law of evidence which withouevidence law cannot operate.

+egree of connection -etween a fact that is given in evidence and issue to -e proved.

Sec. 2: Only re!evant facts can -e produced as evidence. A fact is said to -e relevant whenconnected ith another fact so as to $a%e the other $ore or !ess &robab!e 3Sec. 4

'.# $n crime, facts that can prove actus reus and mens rea would mae its relevancy

6en is charged with assaulting 6evin with a nife. 77 3a5 the nife allegedly used in the photograph of 6evin taen minutes after the ght, showing cuts on his face and arms, a-lood8soaed #8shirt that 6evin was wearing at the time of the ght. #hen court is lielynife and the photograph into evidence to prove the act of 6en as an aggressor of the e/clude the shirt as the shirt doesn0t provide much information a-out how the events uwill give unduly pre9udicial e1ect.


4/9

#!O #&S#


5/9

%&L&'AN() $S A ;&S#$ON O LA!

#he 9udge may also as question to the party proposing to give evidence in relatalleged and if proved would -e relevant and the 9udge may then decide as to its #herefore, it is evident -efore us that, the court is -eing manifested with the powevidence which is irrelevant on the -asis that it will cause a high pre9udicial e1ecaccused.

&g : or e/ample, Siti saw that Ahmad had illed 'innie with a nife. #hen Siti toto Amirul. "ere, Amirul cannot -ecome a witness as he did not see the incident h

that Amirul heard from Siti that Ahmad had murdered 'innie with a nife is relevlogic and common sense. "owever, such evidence generally is not admissi-le infor-idden -y the Law of &vidence since hearsay evidence is generally e/cluded erelevant.

(ase : 77 v +ato0 Seri anwar $-rahim 3No 45 >>? @ LB =


6/9

!&$C"# O &'$+&N(&

#he strength, value and -elieva-ility of evidence presented on a factual issueas compared to evidence introduced -y the other party.

$t is a qualitative assessment of the pro-ative value3relevant5 evidence whichevidence has in relation to the fact in issue 8 also nown as sucienc" of &

(an only -e done once evidence has -een rendered relevant and admissi-le.

ust -e noted that not all relevant evidence has an equal value -ecause relevancy

evidence are two di1erent things.

(ivil lawsuit requires -oth parties to o1ers more convincing evidence and its pro-aon the amount of evidence.

&g : A signed document of Sales and 7urchase Agreement may outweigh the intentintended rather than doDen witnesses with haDy testimony.

"owever, weight of evidence required in civil cases is contrasted with criminal casetest required to prove the conviction is E-eyond reasona-le dou-tF


7/9

W'*+- / '*'NC' * A 3'-*/AC-

$t is a question of fact to -e determined -ased on the circumstances ofeach case:

#ype of evidence

uality of evidence

+emeanour of witnesses

&vidence which carries more convincing and pro-a-le truth -ears moreweight upon the case.

(ase: +ato0 Seri Anwar $-rahim v 77 3@G=H5


8/9

e!evanc" and ei#ht of evidence adistinct $atters

R v A: A woman who was living in the same Iat with her -oyfriend and the accused, a friend, -een raped -y the accused along a river-an. #he accused alleged that the intercourse was copair had supposedly -een having an a1air. #he issue was in regards to the tendering of two fo

=. &vidence of se/ual history with other men

$rrelevant to the issue whether the victim consented to se/ual intercourse on the occasion indictment or to her credi-ility, thus -earing no weight on the case.

@. &vidence of se/ual history with the accused

#hough it is logically relevant to the issue, it cannot prove that the victim consented to the

%elevance and suJciency of proof are di1erent things.

#o -e relevant the evidence need merely have some tendency in logic and common sense proposition in issue.

Although the evidence is relevant and admissi-le, it is not suJcient to prove that that the vto the se/ual intercourse merely -ecause of a supposed se/ual history with the accused.


9/9

#A6& NO#& :

%elevant evidence are facts that maes the e/istence or non8e/istence of aor less pro-a-le.

!eight of evidence is the satisfaction of evidence that has -een admitted tdetermined -y the 9udge.

#hus, relevancy is a question of law where the evidence must -e so connecissue for it to -e admissi-le to the court and only after that the weight of ev

of fact5 will come in hand as court has to decide how much weight it carriescircumstances.

Documents

Relevancy and weight of evidence