Exclude Evidence Civil Cases And Emerging -Myassignmenthelp.Com

Question: Discuss About The Exclude Evidence Civil Cases And Emerging? Answer: Introducation According to section 258(2) of Criminal Procedure Code 2010, any statement made to a police officer by any person, such statement shall not be used as evidence provided such statement is made to police officer below the rank of a sergeant. As per section 22 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, in an investigation, a police officer is entitled to verbally examine any person who appears to him to be aware of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to section 23(1) of the CPC 2010, if any person is charged with an offence during any investigation, or a police officer informs such person that he may be prosecuted for an offence, he must be served with a notice in writing that he is charged with or that he may be prosecuted for certain offence. If the accused person remains silent about any matter in defense only to reveal in trial, there are less chance that the judge would rely on the information provided by such accused person, thus, affecting the case in court. According to section 258 (1) of the CPC 2010 any person charged with offence, who made a statement, such statement shall be admissible and used as an evidence at trial. It is irrespective whether such statement is made in writing or verbal; whether it is made after or before the person is charged and whether it was made during, any investigation carried out by the enforcement agency. Moreover, if the witness consents to act as witness himself, the statements may be used for challenging the credit of the accused person. As per section 280 of the Criminal Penal Code, a magistrate may record any statement that is made before him prior to the commencement of the trial. However, the Magistrate must not record any such statement that he believes to have not been answered voluntarily. As was observed in Mohamed Bachu Miah v PP [1992] SGCA 56, any confession of the accused recorded under this section that is presented before the court as evidence, shall not become admissible if the court is of the opinion that the magistrate has failed to comply with this section. According to Act and Funding (2017), the court shall require evidence regarding the fact whether 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 the statement in evidence only of it is satisfied that the failure of the magistrate to record the statement in compliance with this section did not have an adverse impact on the defense of the accused on the merits. As stipulated under section 259(1), any statement made verbally or in writing, whether it amounts to a confession or not made during the course of police investigation simply implies that the only impediment to admissibility of statement is the voluntariness rule. Act and Funding (2017) states that the voluntariness rule is stipulated under section 258(3) of the Code which states that the court shall not admit any statement made by the accused person. This is when the court deems that such statement has been made by any threat or promise, inducement as was observed in Pah Kay Keong v PP [1995] SGCA 84. Further, if the court deems that if any authority has allured him that making such statement shall enable him to obtain advantage or avoid any perilous evil with respect to the proceedings against him, such statement shall not be admissible in evidence. This is evident from the ruling in PP v Ismil bin Kadar [2009] SGHC 84 where the court described the applicability of the voluntariness rule. The reasons that render the statements made by the accused as inadmissible include unreliability on involuntary statements as they apparently infringe the right to silence or contravene the privilege against self-incrimination. The statements made by the accused persons before the police officers are considered involuntary statements and the statements are considered to be the consequence of improper police conduct that makes the process illegal. The improper police conduct tends to ruin the legal process as well due to which the courts have been permitted to disregard the statements confessed by the accused person before the police officers to be inadmissible in evidence. Pinsler (2016) states that if the grounds on which the court decides about the prevalence of any discretion to exclude the police statements are considered, it seems that the court disregards what the police do in the course of police interrogation. In practice, police statements are either cautioned statements stipulated under section 122 (6) of the Code, which implies that only one statement of the accused person can be considered after informing the accused person about it or long statements stipulated under section 121 of the code. Long statements implies any number of statements can be extracted either prior to or after the suspect is charged. As observed in Choo Pit Hong Peter v PP [1995] 2 SLR 255, the statements made by the accused were made to non-police officers which was governed by the Evidence Act [Cap 97] which stated that statement amounting to confession must satisfy section 24 of the EA prior to its admissibility as evidence in trial. Pinsler (2016) states that both section 122 (5) of the CPC and section 24 of the EA are not applicable to a statement that does not amounts to confession, made by an accused to a non-police officer. The proposed recommendation in this respect would be that any witness examined by the police should be informed about his rights to remain silent about any facts that might subject him to any criminal penalty, charge or forfeiture. In regards to statements made by accused persons, Pinsler (2016) states that it must be ensured that only police officers not below the rank of sergeant are permitted to record investigation statements of the accused. In regards to cautioned statement, the accused persons charged should be cautioned that if the person does not reveal any fact in his defense, revelation of facts before judge might reduce chances of believing such facts. The most significant reform in this technological era would be enhancement in reliability of cautioned statement by enabling video or audio recording of the interview. Such recordings shall safeguard the rights of the accused and would reduce the challenges regarding admissibility of statements with respect to the voluntarin ess issues, thus, saving the time of the court. Reference List Act, J.J.C.P. and Funding, J.P.C., 2017. Administration of Justice. Choo Pit Hong Peter v PP [1995] 2 SLR 255 Criminal Procedure Code 2010 Mohamed Bachu Miah v PP [1992] SGCA 56 Mohamed Faizal, M.A.K. and Lee, J.N., 2015. Criminal procedure, evidence and sentencing.Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review of Singapore Cases, (Annual Review 2015), p.396. Pah Kay Keong v PP [1995] SGCA 84 Pinsler, J., 2016. The Court's Discretion to Exclude Evidence in Civil Cases and Emerging Implication in the Criminal Sphere: The Violet Thread of Justice.SAcLJ,28, p.89. PP v Ismil bin Kadar [2009] SGHC 8