According to s 24 Evidence Act 1950 “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceeding if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from a person in authority and sufficient in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceeding against him.

It is based on the facts to determine whether there is an inducement, threat or promise to make the confession irrelevant. To identify if there is an inducement, threat or promise, 3 criteria must be fulfil as set out in section 24 that is,

i.           Relate to the charge against the accused

ii.                  Proceed from a person from authority

                                         iii.         Must be sufficient in the opinion of the court to cause a reasonable belief                   in the mind of accused that by making it he would gain an advantage or avoid an evil of temporal nature.

No statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution that the statement is made voluntarily which is supported by Ibrahim v R. This is accepted in DPP v Ping Lin which it was held that it is not necessary before a statement is held to be inadmissible because it is not shown to have been voluntary, that it should be thought or held that it was impropriety in the conduct of the person to whom it is made and that what has to be considered is whether a statement is shown to have been voluntary rather than one brought about in one of the ways referred to.

What amount to oppressive circumstances which is a negative voluntariness are set out by the case of PP v Chan Choon Keong.

i.                    Characteristic of accused

ii.                  Period of time in during which he was questioned

iii.                Length of time during custody

iv.                Whether or not he was given the opportunity to rest and refreshment.

PP v Naikan the facts that a police officer reminds a witness that he should tell the truth would constitute a threat but in PP v Ramasamy, it would be depends on the case.

Person who is an authority is not mention by the act but it can be vary from situation where in Deokinanan v R, a person in authority is a person who has control over the accused in the proceeding. To relate with the oppressive circumstances, if the accused made the statement when he is interrogate by the police and after 5 hours interrogation without any rest and refreshment, he made the statement to escape from the situation because he believes that if he stays more in the interrogation, he would suffer from it, therefore the voluntarily statement only permanent for a period of time which is only temporal in nature.  

But the burden of proof to proof that such statement is to be made by the prosecution to proof beyond reasonable doubt that the statement is made voluntarily without any inducement, threat or promise.

In Dato’ Mokhtar Hashim case, the classic testof admissibility of an accused confession it was made voluntarily in sense that it was not obtained from him either by fear or prejudice or hope of advantage created by person in authority or by oppression, should be applied in a manner.

In conclusion, if all of the criteria in section 24 is complied with, the confession made cannot be used in the court as discussed above.

Prepared by : Siti Nurhakimah (A130153)

Leave a Reply.

law of evidence