SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE by Faye Er https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE en-us 2022-05-02 18:15:38 UTC 2026-03-14 00:48:20 UTC hello@padlet.com FAYE ER MASUDAL fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167217051 012020020927]]> 2022-05-02 18:26:56 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167217051 NUR AFIFAH BINTI MOHD YUSOF fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167218722 012020021095]]> 2022-05-02 18:28:03 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167218722 SHAHRUL NIZAM BIN JAMAL ABDUL NASIR ALAMIR fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167219930 012020020614]]> 2022-05-02 18:28:45 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167219930 Section 11(b), 14 and 15 of EA 1950 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167227472 2022-05-02 18:34:26 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167227472 Case Law 1 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167230519 Case: Azahan Bin Mohd Aminallah v Public Prosecutor

Fact: 
  • The defendant was first charged with the rape of this 15-years-old daughter in early December 1996 at the session court on 26 January 1997. His daughter, the prosecution's main (PW2) witness, said that he had multiple further sexual encounters with the appellant between 1991 and 1995. Following the prosecution's case, the initial charge against the appellant was amended, and three further charges were filed against him due to prosecution witness 2 testimony. The appellant, whose counsel did not represent them, was asked to submit his case. From the dock, he elected to make an unsworn statement, but the court, however, dismissed the unsworn statement and found him guilty on all four counts, and sentenced him to 18 years in jail and two strokes of the rotan for each accusation. The appellant took his case to the Court of Appeal after losing in the High Court. The method of actually presenting evidence of prior sexual intercourse from PW2 during her examination-in-chief was found to be unsatisfactory by the court of appeal. The appellant was tried for more than three similar offenses committed over a period of more than a year. He was accused of committing four separate acts of rape over a five-year period. This was a violation of section 164(1) of the  Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Held: 
  • When deciding whether to admit similar fact evidence, a court must perform a balancing act, assessing the probative value of the evidence against its prejudicial effect, as implied by section 14 and section 15 of the Evidence Act 1950. Prosecution witness 2 (PW2) testimony about the appellant's earlier acts of intercourse with her was relevant and admissible in this case. However, the court must still decide if the probative value of her evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect. The session's court's conclusion contained no balancing exercise needed by section 14 and section 15 of the Evidence Act. This is a significant misrepresentation that resulted in a serious miscarriage of justice since the sessions court added three more charges against the appellant based on similar fact evidence. Because of poor investigation and prosecution, this case was riddled with major flaws. In addition, the session's court violated the requirements of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and Evidence Act. Allowing the appeal, the case was dismissed and the sentence set aside. 
]]> 2022-05-02 18:36:51 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167230519 Case Law 2 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167231151 Case: Borgman v DPP

Fact:
  • Criticized specific purpose test and affirmed striking similarity test but added that SFE should not be admitted if it is too prejudicial. Thus, SFE can be admitted if the probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. In this case, the accused was charged with violating the modesty of 2 schoolboys. The accused was the principal of the school. The modus operandi of the accused is that he always made night check-ins for every dorm and invited students of his to his room. In his room, he will then instruct the victim(s) to conduct gross indecency. The method of how the accused orchestrated the whole situation is by: 
    a) Using his authority as a principal. 
    b) Picking a specific time when other students are asleep. 
    c) Being passive during the act.

Held:
  • There could be a possibility of fabrication or concoction and prejudicial effect in which the court will reject the evidence from the boys. However, the statements made by the boys during cross-examination happen to be consistent. It is encouraged to look into the striking similarities of the boys' stories rather than their physical attributes. The court further affirmed the striking similarity and stressed that there should be no prejudicial effect on the accused person. The evidence must have more probative value than prejudicial effect (this depends on the facts of the case).
]]> 2022-05-02 18:37:21 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167231151 Opinion fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167233577 In our opinion, the existence of sections 11(b), 14, and 15 of EA 1950, allows for those on trial to have a chance at being viewed and judged fairly based on the current case instead of previous misconducts that might have occurred. The fundamental example of similar fact evidence is when the prosecution introduces evidence of other similar crimes committed or alleged to have been committed, by the accused in order to prove that he or she is guilty of the charged offense. It is unfair to lay out evidence of previous misdemeanors or mistakes as it is more than likely to cloud the judgment and opinions of the jury. It is only human nature for us to immediately link someone's current affiliations to their past actions, thus leading the jury's decision to become unjust. We believe that similar fact evidence is a slippery slope to tread on that might discourage the jury and judge to see the current case as it is instead of seeing the alleged as the person they were in the past. We believe that turning over a new leaf is possible and that focusing on only the evidence related to the current case would allow for a smoother and fair trial for all parties.


]]> 2022-05-02 18:39:18 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167233577 Conclusion fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167233913 In a nutshell, it can be said that similar fact evidence can only be used if the prosecution passes the affirmative probative test rather than striking similarity. In the instance of R v Lunt, the court stated that in order to determine whether the evidence is positively admissible in the offence charged against the accused, the problem to which the evidence is directed must be discernible. When the concerns include identity, demonstrating intent, or rebutting a defense of unintentional offenses, for example, identical fact evidence may be accepted. The impact of bad character on the admissibility of related fact evidence is not overlooked. Because the admissibility of identical fact evidence is always at the discretion of the presiding judges, it is advisable to reject the evidence if it might affect the judges' views and be irrelevant to its genuine evidential value. As a result, the balancing process would be viewed as an important preventative measure to avoid discrimination against innocent alleged perpetrators.]]> 2022-05-02 18:39:34 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167233913 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167237285 Similar Fact Evidence:
Similar fact evidence addresses circumstances in which an accused person's earlier wrongdoing, other than that which inevitably leads to the offense charged, is considered admissible to secure a conviction since it is similar to the offense. Judges have always acknowledged that sections 11(b), 14, and 15 of the Evidence Act 1950 apply to similar fact evidence rules.

Application of Section 54:
1. Evidence of subsequent conduct: Evidence of subsequent conduct is not evidence of bad character.

2. Evidence of other pending or awaiting charges: Evidence relating to other charges that are pending against the accused is not admissible under section 54 of the Act as it tends to show that he had committed those other offenses.

]]> 2022-05-02 18:42:03 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2167237285 Video Link 1 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452399 2022-05-04 06:12:51 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452399 Video Link 2 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452641 2022-05-04 06:13:09 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452641 Picture 1 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452714 This is the jail booking photo for Joseph Frey, whose conviction for the 1991 rape of a University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh student was overturned. For the first time in well than 20 years, Frey was released from the Winnebago County Jail on July 12, 2013. He was without money, identification, and a place to live. Frey was falsely convicted of sexual assault and kidnapping in 1994 and was sentenced to 102 years in prison. (Source: Sheriff's Office of Winnebago County)]]> 2022-05-04 06:13:15 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452714 Picture 2 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452785 When a driver struck and murdered a woman and her three young girls nearly two years ago, an Ontario court sentenced him to 17 years in prison, saying he "gambled with other people's lives." Brady Robertson's "casual attitude" toward traffic laws deserved a harsh penalty, Ontario Court Justice Sandra Caponecchia told a Brampton, Ont., court Monday.
In the two and a half years leading up to the June 18, 2020 incident in Brampton, which killed Karolina Ciasullo and her three girls, ages six to one, Robertson had amassed 15 driving offences.]]> 2022-05-04 06:13:22 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452785 Online Newspaper 1 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452927 2022-05-04 06:13:33 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169452927 Online Newspaper 2 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169453016 2022-05-04 06:13:40 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2169453016 General Principles of Law https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2184237852 Similar Fact Evidence is inadmissible when:

  • Evidence of any act or activity not covered by the charges against the accused is inadmissible.
  • When an accused is charged in a single proceeding on multiple charges, evidence on one count is inadmissible in regard to another
]]> 2022-05-15 04:29:18 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2184237852 Exception https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2184242959 Similar Fact Evidence can be admissible through:

  1. Statute
    • Section 11(b) Evidence Act 1950: Highly Probable
      • Codified the common law exception into the Evidence Act 195
    • Section 14 Evidence Act 1950: State of Mind
      • Any evidence fact demonstrating the existence of a person's mental state
    • Section 15 Evidence Act 1950: Accidental/Intentional
      • Evidence may be crucial when it's unclear whether the crime was committed accidentally or with purpose.
  2. Common Law
    • The test is whether the evidence is relevant to such a high degree that its probative worth outweighs its prejudicial effect as in the case of DPP vs Boardman
]]> 2022-05-15 04:48:25 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2184242959 Situations that can be exampled are: https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2184251633
  • Section 11 (b): When facts not otherwise relevant become relevant (b) High Probable
    • Pedophiles are more likely to insult children
  • Section 14: Facts showing the existence of the state of mind or of the body or bodily feeling 
    • The doctor issues an incorrect prescription and claims he is unaware of the mistake. He has, however, already been convicted of the same crimes. 
  • Section 15: Facts bearing on the question of whether the act was accidental or intentional
    • Ali's four girlfriends died as a result of diving without suitable equipment. This fact is significant in demonstrating Ali's intent to kill. 
    • ]]>     2022-05-15 05:18:14 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2184251633     Section 11(b) fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2186500275 In criminal proceedings, Section 11(b) is an exemption to the rule prohibiting the admission of comparable fact evidence.

    Explanation:
    Similar fact evidence, which is a type of bad character evidence that discloses the accused person's previous reprehensible behavior, is inadmissible in Malaysia due to its prejudicial nature. This exclusionary rule, however, is not absolute and is subject to numerous exceptions, some of which have not been unanimously acknowledged, such as Section 11(b). Due to differences in court interpretation and differing schools of thought on its application, the role of Section 11(b) as a technique for admitting similar fact evidence is still unsettled.    ]]>     2022-05-16 22:40:31 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2186500275     Section 14 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2186506089 Facts showing the existence of the state of mind or of the body or bodily feeling. 

    Explanation:
    It must show that the state of mind does not exist generally but must be specific (ex: cannot admit evidence of habit under section 14) 

    Example:
    If I may possess knowledge of ill will intention then the evidence can be admitted under section 14.
    ]]>     2022-05-16 22:49:06 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2186506089     Section 15 fayeer08 https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2186506243 Under section 15 of EA 1950 similar fact evidence only would be admissible if it is relevant to determine whether the alleged misconduct is designated or accidental.

    Explanation:
    Admissibility of similar fact evidence must be carefully applied in cases where the tendered evidence must have immediate rationale inference to the fact in issue as the principle has been adopted in EA 1950.

    3 conditions have to be fulfilled: 
    • There must be issues where the act is accidental or intentional. 
    • There must be facts that form part of the series of a similar occurrences. 
    • In doing so,  the accused must be the person concerned. 
    ]]>     2022-05-16 22:49:13 UTC https://padlet.com/fayeer08/SFE/wish/2186506243