Evidence Obtained Through Unlawful Means During Police Custody
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.25041/ip.v5i1.3472Abstract
In contemporary discussions, there is growing debate over the procedural methods employed by police in obtaining evidence from suspects while in custody. A key point of contention is whether evidence acquired through illegal means should be admitted in court, with some arguing that its admission violates the suspect's right to a fair trial, while others contend that such evidence is crucial for proving the case. The law is currently ambiguous on this issue. According to the Oxford Legal Dictionary, illegally obtained evidence is defined as evidence acquired through methods that contravene legal procedures. Importantly, the distinction between evidence obtained illegally and confessions made while in police custody is critical, as Section 26(1) of the Evidence Act 1950 explicitly prohibits the admission of confessions made under such circumstances. This article aims to explore the status of illegally obtained evidence and assess whether it should be admitted or excluded by the courts when the evidence is obtained from a suspect in police custody.
Keywords:
Illegally Obtained Evidence, Police Custody, Relevancy of FactReferences
Choong, J. (2021, April 30). Report: Ganapathy's family lawyer says autopsy report confirms death due to shoulder and leg injuries. Malay Mail., from, https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2021/04/30/report-ganapathys-family-lawyer-says-autopsy-report-confirms-death-due-to-s/1970541. retrieved June 23, 2023.
Evidence obtained illegally. (n.d.). Oxford Reference. Retrieved June 23, 2023, from https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095803819;jsessionid=0CB07F73A53A4A833B3C2721E6237D7B, exclusionary rule | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Law. Cornell. Edu., from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule, retrieved June 20, 2023.
Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Yunus (2020). The Current Development of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Malaysia. Law Majjala, vol. 7. pp. 33-55.
Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Yunus (2004). The relevancy and admissibility of evidence obtained through unlawful means: a comparative legal appraisal. Jurnal Undang-undang, 8 (1). pp. 111- 174.
Mohd Akram Shair Mohamed, Mohamad Ismail Mohamad Yunus (2016). The status of evidence obtained unlawfully: a comparative appraisal of the laws in some selected Common law jurisdictions and Islamic law perspective. Journal of Islamic Law Review, 12 (2). pp. 171-190.
G. Kanchana. (2009, March 5). Police brutality, torture and murder - Death In Custody. Malaysiakini., from https://www.malaysiakini.com/letters/99721, retrieved June 23, 2023
Habibah Omar. Law of Evidence in Malaysia, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018.
Hugh McKay, & Nicola Shaw. (n.d.). Whatever Means Necessary. https://taxbar.com/wpcontent/uploads/2016/01/1452434391Whatever_Means_Nicola_Shaw.pdf. probative value | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Law.Cornell.Edu., from, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probative_value. retrieved June 20, 2023.
Mohamad Ismail B Mohamad Yunus, The Eyes of the Laws. Kuala Lumpur: Anaasa Publications, 2020.
S.N Jain, Admissibility of Illegally Obtained Evidence. Journal of Indian Law Institute, 22(3), 322 - 327. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43950696, 1980, July – September.
Aizuddin Syah bin Ahmad v. PP [2018] MLJU 910.
Hanafi bin Mat Hassan v. PP (2006) 4 MLJ 134.
Krishna Rao Gurumurthy v. PP [2001] 1 MLJ 274.
Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Muhammad Nazrin bin Ayan v. Public Prosecutor [2020] MLJU 1571.
Majlis Angkatan Tentera Malaysia v. Mohd Nurul Ami Mohd Basri (2019) 2 CLJ 722.
PP v. Gan Ah Bee [1975] 2 MLJ 106.
PP v. Samsul Arifin Bakar [2019] 2 CLJ 692.
Mustadzimaludin bin Musimin v. Public Prosecutor [2022] MLJU 2401.
PP v. Rosman Saprey [2019] 4 CLJ 767.
PP v. Mohamad Rasid Jusoh [2009] 9 CLJ 557.
Ramli b. Kechik v. PP [1986] 2 MLJ 33.
Re Kah Wah Video Sdn Bhd [1987] 2 MLJ 459.
R v. Leathem [1861] 8 Cox CC 23.
R v.Loosely [[2002] 1 Cr App R 29.
R v. Kuruma [1955] 1 All ER 236.
Trust v. Taylor [1975] 1 NZLR 728.
R v. Wray (1970) 11 DLR (3d) 673.
Saminathan v. PP [1937] MLJ 39.
Fakhrurrazi Ismail v. PP [2021] 1 LNS 122.
Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.
Evidence Act 1950.
European Convention Human Right 1950
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Copyright
Copyright (c) 2024 by the Auhtor(s) Published by Development Centre Research of Law and Scientific Publication on behalf of the Faculty of Law, Universitas Lampung
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.