Picture
To distinguish between relevancy and admissibility, I would like to explain the meaning of relevancy and admissibility before we proceed to the difference between these two concepts. 

According to Janab’s Key to Evidence, relevancy refers to the degree of connection and probative value between a fact that is given in evidence and the issue to be proved. Relevancy of facts had been provided from Section 5 to 55 of Evidence Act 1950. By referring to the illustration (a) provided in Section 5 where A is tried for the murder of B by beating him with a club with the intention of causing his death. There are three facts in issue to be proved - A’s beating with the club; A’s causing B’s death by the beating; and A’s intention to cause B’s death.

A fact is relevant when it is so related to the fact in issue, that they render the fact in issue probable or improbable. For example, to prove the third facts in issue in the example just now, the facts that A and B was having quarrel before the murder happens is relevant to prove the third facts in issue which is A’s intention to cause B’s death. 

Admissibility involves the process whereby the court determines whether the Law of Evidence permits that relevant evidence to be received by the court. The concept of admissibility is often distinguished from relevancy. Relevancy is determined by logic and common sense, practical or human experience, and knowledge of affairs. On the other hand, The admissibility of evidence, depends first on the concept of relevancy of a sufficiently high degree of probative value, and secondly, on the fact that the evidence tendered does not infringe any of the exclusionary rules that may be applicable to it. Relevancy is not primarily dependant on rules of law but admissibility is founded on law. Thus, relevancy usually known as logical relevancy while admissibility is known as legal relevancy. Relevancy is a question of fact which is the duty of lawyers to decide whether to tender such evidence in the court. On the other hand, admissibility is the duty of the court to decide whether an evidence should be received by the court according to Augustine Paul JC in the case of Public Prosecutor  v. Dato Seri Anwar bin Ibrahim.

In general, a relevant fact given in evidence under Section 5 to 55 is admissible in the court. However, a relevant fact under Section 5 to 55 may not be admissible if the other sections of the Act do not permit it to be received by the court. These are the main exclusionary rules in the Act which excluded the admissibility of a relevant fact. Hearsay statement, confessions, evidence of the defendant character, exclusion of evidentiary facts by estoppel and exclusion of privileged communication.

For example, hearsay evidence is generally excluded even though relevant. For example, Siti saw that Ahmad had killed Vinnie with a knife. Then Siti told what he saw to Amirul. Here, Amirul cannot become a witness as he did not see the incident himself. The fact that Amirul heard from Siti that Ahmad had murdered Vinnie with a knife is relevant as it is based on logic and common sense. However, such evidence generally is not admissible in the court as it is forbidden by the Law of Evidence. Section 60 stated that oral evidence must be direct. The witness who testifies in court must be the person who perceived the facts with his own sense. 

For instance, a confession obtained by any inducement, threats or promise is not admissible under Section 24. A confession to the police officer below the rank in Inspector is not admissible under Section 25. Confession by accused while in custody of police is also not admissible under Section 26 even though it is logically relevant. For example, this is what I noticed in the accused’s statement in police report while I was doing my internship in Attorney General's Chambers. In a case where the thief had already admitted to the police officer that he had stolen the hand phone. However, such confession cannot be tendered as an evidence in the court. The accused then founded not guilty by the court because the Deputy Public Prosecutor failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Here, the fact that the thief had already confessed to the police officer is relevant, however, it is not admissible in the court as it had been forbidden by Section 26 of Evidence Act 1950. In the case of Eng Sin v. Public Prosecutor, Gill J held that the admission by the accused to a doctor that he had killed a man is not admissible as he is still under the custody of a police officer. 

An irrelevant fact is not admissible in the court. However, in certain cases, evidence, which is not relevant under Section 5 to 55 may nonetheless be admissible. Examples include:
  •  Statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found: Section 32.
  •  Impeaching credit of witness: Section 155.
  •  Former statements of witness may be proved to corroborate later testimony as to same fact: Section 157.

As conclusion, relevancy is a test for admissibility. The question of admissibility is one of law and is determined by the Court. In Section 136 of Evidence Act 1950, a distinction is made between relevancy and admissibility, if it can be shown that the evidence would be relevant if proved, the court shall admit evidence of it.

Prepared By: THAN CHONG SENG (JOHNSON)   A122879


KIRUBINI A/P G.SUBRAMANIAM A130056
12/13/2012 10:07:32 pm

I truly agree with the illustrations raised as to the issue being mentioned here. Question of admissibility of evidence are determinable by judge as it’s a question of law. The judge may also ask question to the party proposing to give evidence in relation to the manner alleged and if proved would be relevant and the judge may then decide as to its admissibility. Therefore, it is evident before us that, the court is being manifested with the power to exclude evidence which is irrelevant.

Reply
gasper shilangi
3/4/2014 05:58:58 pm

even marginally probative evidence is admissible before the court of law.

Reply
Tataw Machurien Oben
2/13/2014 03:13:49 am

This is beyond reasonable the doubt the Most explicit note I have read in ages.

Reply
SIDHARTH
5/8/2014 01:11:07 am

Amazing post...keep it up

Reply
SIDHARTH
5/8/2014 01:15:06 am

If any more of such articles you have at your disposal.....please share.Thanks in advance

Reply
Bennet Teargas
7/29/2015 08:34:49 pm

well understood...thanks for the article

Reply
victor j
12/23/2015 04:27:41 am

very helpful

Reply
COSMAS MASIMO
12/26/2015 11:24:11 pm

admissibility and relevancy is the question of fact in issues to be accepted before the court of law.

Reply
yesse T
3/19/2016 07:45:53 am

thanks

Reply

There are three facts in issue to be proved - A’s beating B with the club; A’s causing B’s death by the beating; and A’s intention to cause B’s death.

Reply
5/25/2016 03:22:24 am

Thank you so much for making this concept so easy and understandable for students of law.

Love from Pakistan!

Reply
Annauciata
10/23/2016 10:01:53 am

THANKS... i have now understood relevance and admissibility. I was having an issue with it but its now settled

Reply
Hamza Abubakar
12/14/2016 06:01:18 am

I Have Not Undastud

Reply
COSMAS MASIMO
12/15/2016 06:43:05 am

Hamza it is simple just relax

it is like this: for a court of law to admit what you have been plea before it, or to make your argument admissible before the court there some things to consider! follow me down..........

in as far as relevancy and admissibility is concerned,there some issues to put into the consideration that the court must stick with it; things like:-
1. the strength of the evidence
2. your evidence should not be excluded with the rules of the law MEANS is shall be accepted by the law
3. it should be relevancy to the fact in issues
4. last it shall be competent in material

After considering these issues is when/where the aspect of relevancy and admissibility in its generality arose to be-like the basics of the EVIDENCE.
NOTE: Not each and everything can be accepted before the court of law unless it qualify to that four basic rules.


Cosmas B. Masimo (LL.B)
Student at
University of Iringa (Tanzania)

Reply
kelvinho
12/18/2016 09:23:10 am

i real appreciate that....i help me to do my assignment

Reply
Ibrahim auwal
1/1/2017 11:39:42 am

nice article

Reply
Ibrahim Auwal
1/1/2017 11:43:45 am

pls, what is distinction between fact & fact in issue in Law of evidence

Reply
Tsitsi
1/25/2017 11:39:55 am

So helpful thanks

Reply
Suleiman abubakar
1/29/2017 12:51:31 am

I realy appreciate that you help me to do my assignment. that is presentation paper. I wish u long life.

Reply
alice
5/11/2017 02:15:00 pm

Thanks so much it has helped me a lot than I expected

Reply



Leave a Reply.


law of evidence