SECTION 5 OF THE

EVIDENCE ACT 1950

5. Evidence may be given of facts in
issue and relevant facts
• Evidence may be given in any suit or
proceeding of the existence or non-
existence of every fact in issue and of
such other facts as are hereinafter
declared to be relevant, and of no others.
 SECTION 5 TO BE READ WITH SECTION 136

Section 136

When either party proposes to give evidence of any fact, the court
may ask the party proposing to give the evidence in what manner
the alleged fact, if proved, would be relevant; and the court shall
admit the evidence if it thinks that the fact, if proved, would be
relevant, and not otherwise

(Section 136 gives to the court the power to ask a party tendering evidence of
a particular fact to show how the fact if proved would be relevant, and the
evidence can be admitted only if the court is satisfied that it is relevant)
 PUBLIC PROSECUTOR V DATO' SERI ANWAR BIN IBRAHIM
(NO 3) 1999-2 MLJ 1

Questions of admissibility of evidence are questions of law and

are determinable by the judge. If it is the duty of the judge to
admit all relevant evidence, it is no less his duty to exclude all
irrelevant evidence. Section 5 of the Evidence Act 1950 declares
that evidence may be given in any suit or proceeding of the
existence or non-existence of every fact in issue and of such
other facts as declared to be relevant and of no others. It follows
from this that a party to a suit or proceeding is entitled to give
evidence of only facts which are declared relevant under the
provisions of the Evidence Act 1950. The judge is empowered to
allow only such evidence to be given as is, in his opinion,
relevant and admissible and in order to ascertain the relevancy of
the evidence which a party proposes to give, the judge may ask
the party proposing to give evidence, in what manner the alleged
fact, if proved, would be relevant, and he may then decide as to
its admissibility .
 MUTHUSAMY V PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
[1948] 1 MLJ 57

It is the duty of the advocate to prepare his case with due regard to
the real issues and with special care for the law of evidence. If he
cannot show tersely that a proposed question is relevant he cannot
complain if the Magistrate promptly excludes it under section 5
which provides that evidence may be given of legally relevant facts
“and of no others.” These words are mandatory.
 RELEVANCY V.
ADMISSIBILITY
• Relevant facts prima facie admissible
except for hearsay and opinion

• Evidence which are not relevant should

not be admissible.
 R V TURNER
[1975] 1 ALL ER 70

Relevance, however, does not result in evidence being

admissible: it is a condition precedent to admissibility. Our
law excludes evidence of many matters which in life outside
the courts sensible people take into consideration when
making decisions. Two broad heads of exclusion are
hearsay and opinion.
MAKIN V ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
NEW SOUTH WALES [1894] AC 57
It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution to adduce evidence
tending to show that the accused had been guilty of criminal acts other
than those covered in the indictment, for the purpose of leading to the
conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his criminal conduct
or character to have committed the offence for which he is being tried.
On the other hand, the mere fact that the evidence adduced tends to show
the commission of other crimes does not render it inadmissible if it is
relevant to an issue before the jury, and it may be so relevant if it bears
upon the question whether the acts alleged to constitute the crime charged
in the indictment were designed or accident, or to rebut a defence which
would otherwise be open to the accused.
 R V KILBOURNE [1973] AC 729
That what was declared to be inadmissible in the first sentence of this passage is
nevertheless relevant (i e logically probative) can be seen from numerous studies of
offences in which recidivists are matched against first offenders, and by considering
that it has never been doubted that evidence of motive (which can be viewed as
propensity to commit the particular offence charged, in contradistinction to
propensity to commit offences generally of the type charged) is relevant. All relevant
evidence is prima facie admissible. The reason why the type of evidence referred to
by Lord Herschell LC in the first sentence of the passage is inadmissible is, not
because it is irrelevant, but because its logically probative significance is
considered to be grossly outweighed by its prejudice to the accused, so that a fair
trial is endangered if it is admitted; the law therefore exceptionally excludes this
relevant evidence; whereas in the circumstances referred to in the second sentence
the logically probative significance of the evidence is markedly greater.
 ILLEGALLY OBTAINED
EVIDENCE
• Court is not concerned on the manner the
evidence is obtained or the time as long as it is
relevant.

• Court has no discretion to reject relevant

evidence on the basis that is it improperly or
unfairly obtained.
 Musa Sadau v The State
(1968) ANLR 125
• Mahkamah Rayuan memutuskan bahawa:
(i) apabila sesuatu fakta itu dikatakan
sebagai relevan, ia tidak boleh dikecualikan;
dan
(ii) tiada mana-mana peruntukan yang
menyatakan bahawa keterangan yang
relevan dikecualikan hanya kerana cara ia
diperoleh adalah tidak sah.
 KURUMA V THE QUEEN
[1955] 2 WLR 223

The test to be applied in considering whether

evidence is admissible is whether it is
relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is
admissible and the court is not concerned
with how the evidence was obtained.
 Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP.
[2010] 2 MLJ 312, hlm. 318.
• Sampel DNA tertuduh yang diperoleh melalui
berus gigi, tuala dan botol air mineral telah
diambil tanpa kebenaran dan pengetahuan
tertuduh.
• Perbuatan mengambil sampel DNA melalui
objek-objek tersebut tanpa pengetahuan dan
kebenaran tertuduh dikategorikan sebagai tidak
sah.
Hanafi Mat Hassan v PP [2006] 3
CLJ 269
• Spesimen darah yang diperoleh daripada tertuduh untuk
tujuan menjalankan ujian DNA tidak diperoleh secara
sukarela.
• Dalam kes ini, pemerolehan spesimen darah tanpa
kerelaan tertuduh ialah pemerolehan keterangan secara
tidak sah.
• Prinsip yang dipegang oleh mahkamah adalah selagi
keterangan yang diperoleh itu relevan, maka mahkamah
tidak mempunyai budi bicara untuk menolak keterangan
tersebut.
 Dwi Supriyatno v Pendakwa
Raya. [2016] 1 LNS 242
• “It is therefore clear that the court has no
discretion to refuse to admit evidence on
the ground that it was illegally obtained if it
is relevant.... It also applies to evidence
obtained by unfair procedures... It follows
that the evidence relating to blood sample
taken from the accused is admissible as it
is relevant even if it was taken without his
consent.”
 PP v HAJI KASSIM
[1971] 2 MLJ 115
In this light must be read the judgment of the Privy Council in Kuruma v The
Queen [1955] 2 WLR 223, 227-7 where Lord Goddard CJ said:-- “the test to
be applied in considering whether evidence is admissible is whether it is
relevant to the matters in issue. If it is, it is admissible and the court is not
concerned with how the evidence was obtained... There can be no difference
in principle for this purpose between a civil and a criminal case. No doubt 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. This
was emphasized in the case before this Board of Noor Mohamed v The King
and in the recent case in the House of Lords, Harris v Director of Public
Prosecutions. If, for instance, some admission of some piece of evidence, e.g.
a document, had been obtained from the defendant by a trick, no doubt the
judge might properly rule it out.
 DISCRETION TO DISALLOW
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE
• Court has discretion to disallow evidence
in criminal cases if strict rules of
admissibility would operate unfairly against
the accused.
• Ini menunjukkan bahawa mahkamah
mempunyai kuasa tersendiri untuk
menolak keterangan yang diperoleh
secara tidak sah jika penerimaannya akan
memprejudiskan tertuduh.
 DISCRETION TO DISALLOW
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE
• Prinsip ini juga dinyatakan dalam satu kes
Singapura, iaitu Cheng Swee Tiang v. PP
[1964] MLJ 291 yang berkenaan dengan
kes pemerangkapan (entrapment).
• Namun begitu, terdapat beberapa situasi
yang menunjukkan mahkamah tidak
mempunyai budi bicara untuk menolak
keterangan yang diperoleh secara tidak
sah.
 DISCRETION TO DISALLOW
ILLEGALLY OBTAINED EVIDENCE
• Prinsip ini juga dinyatakan dalam satu kes
Singapura, iaitu Cheng Swee Tiang v. PP
[1964] MLJ 291 yang berkenaan dengan
kes pemerangkapan (entrapment).
• Namun begitu, terdapat beberapa situasi
yang menunjukkan mahkamah tidak
mempunyai budi bicara untuk menolak
keterangan yang diperoleh secara tidak
sah.
 Wan Mohd Azman bin Hassan v.
Pendakwa Raya [2010] 4 CLJ 529.
• Aktiviti penyeludupan dadah adalah disifatkan sebagai aktiviti
jenayah yang sangat berselindung.
• Oleh itu, sangat sukar bagi pihak berkuasa untuk
membanteras jenayah tersebut tanpa menggunakan teknik
pengawasan dan penyiasatan yang melibatkan agent
provocateur.
• Dalam kes ini, SP3 ialah seorang agent provocateur yang
membuat tawaran untuk membeli dua hingga tiga kilogram
ganja daripada kedua-dua tertuduh. Kedua-dua tertuduh
tersebut tidak mengetahui tentang perangkap yang dipasang
oleh pihak polis dan akhirnya ditangkap serta dadah tersebut
dirampas.
 Wan Mohd Azman bin Hassan v.
Pendakwa Raya [2010] 4 CLJ 529.
• Dalam penghakiman kes tersebut, mahkamah
mencetuskan bahawa keterangan yang diperoleh
secara tidak sah daripada agent provocateur
hendaklah diterima dan kewibawaan agent
provocateur bukanlah satu isu yang perlu
dipertikaikan.
• Kesannya, keterangan tersebut diterima di bawah
seksyen 40A(2) Akta Dadah Berbahaya 1952
kerana mahkamah tidak mempunyai budi bicara
untuk menolak keterangan tersebut meskipun ia
diperoleh secara tidak sah.