Evidence Act 1950

Last updated
Evidence Act 1950
  • An Act to define the law of evidence.
Citation Act 56
Territorial extentThroughout Malaysia
Enacted1950 (Ordinance No. 11 of 1950)
Revised: 1971 (Act 56 w.e.f. 1 November 1971)
Effective [Peninsular Malaysia--23 May 1950, Ord. No. 11 of 1950;
Sabah and Sarawak--1 November 1971, P.U.(A) 261/1971]
Amended by
Federal Constitution (Modification of Laws) (Ordinances and Proclamations) Order 1958 [L.N. 332/1958]
Evidence Ordinance (Extension) Order 1971 [P.U.(A) 261/1971]
Corrigendum to P.U.(A) 261/1971 [P.U.(A) 280/1971]
Revision of Laws (Evidence Act) Order 1974 [P.U.(A) 239/1974]
Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment and Extension) Act 1976 [Act A324]
Constitution (Amendment) Act 1976 [Act A354]
Subordinate Courts Act (Extension) Order 1980 [P.U.(A) 357/1980]
Evidence (Amendment) Act 1989 [Act A729]
Evidence (Amendment) Act 1993 [Act A851]
Evidence (Amendment) Act 1997 [Act A978]
Status: In force

The Evidence Act 1950 (Malay : Akta Keterangan 1950), is a Malaysian set of laws which were enacted to define the law of evidence.

Contents

Structure

The Evidence Act 1950, in its current form (1 January 2006), consists of 3 Parts containing 11 chapters, 167 sections and no schedule (including 9 amendments).

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affidavit</span> Written legal statement, made under oath

An affidavit is a written statement voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation which is administered by a person who is authorized to do so by law. Such a statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the affiant's signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other words, it contains a verification, which means that it is made under oath on penalty of perjury, and this serves as evidence for its veracity and is required in court proceedings.

Testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter.

Hearsay is testimony from a witness under oath who is reciting an out-of-court statement that is being offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

A subpoena duces tecum, or subpoena for production of evidence, is a court summons ordering the recipient to appear before the court and produce documents or other tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial. In some jurisdictions, it can also be issued by legislative bodies such as county boards of supervisors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discovery (law)</span> Pre-trial procedure in common law countries for obtaining evidence

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. Discovery can be obtained from non-parties using subpoenas. When a discovery request is objected to, the requesting party may seek the assistance of the court by filing a motion to compel discovery.

Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that reformulated the standard for determining when the admission of hearsay statements in criminal cases is permitted under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. The Court held that prior testimonial statements of witnesses who have since become unavailable may not be admitted without cross-examination.

First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules.

In the law of evidence in the United States, public policy doctrines for the exclusion of relevant evidence encompass several types of evidence that would be relevant to prove facts at issue in a legal proceeding, but which are nonetheless excluded because of public policy concerns. There are five major areas of exclusion that arise out of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE"): subsequent remedial measures, ownership of liability insurance, offers to plead guilty to a crime, offers to settle a claim, and offers to pay medical expenses. Many states have modified versions of the FRE under their own state evidence codes which widen or narrow the public policy exclusions in state courts.

The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury. The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Indian Evidence Act</span> Act of Imperial Legislative Council of India

The Indian Evidence Act, originally passed in India by the Imperial Legislative Council in 1872, during the British Raj, contains a set of rules and allied issues governing admissibility of evidence in the Indian courts of law.

Hearsay, in a legal forum, is an out-of-court statement which is being offered in court for the truth of what was asserted. In most courts, hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies.

The hearsay provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the common law relating to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings begun on or after 4 April 2005.

In the law of the United States of America, an objection is a formal protest raised in court during a trial to disallow a witness's testimony or other evidence in violation of the rules of evidence or other procedural law. An objection is typically raised after the opposing party asks a question of the witness, but before the witness can answer, or when the opposing party is about to enter something into evidence. The judge then makes a ruling on whether the objection is "sustained" or "overruled". An attorney may choose to "rephrase" a question that has been objected to, so long as the judge permits it. Lawyers should make an objection before there is an answer to the question.

Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the federal government must produce documents relied upon by government witnesses in federal criminal proceedings.

The following outline of evidence law in the United States sets forth the areas of contention that generally arise in the presentation of evidence in trial proceedings.

The importance of corroboration is unique to Scots criminal law. A long-standing feature of Scots law, the requirement for corroborating evidence means at least two independent sources of evidence are required in support of each crucial fact before an accused can be convicted of a crime. This means, for example, that an admission of guilt by the accused is insufficient evidence to convict in Scotland, because that evidence needs to be corroborated by another source.

Contested case hearing is the name for quasi-judicial administrative hearings governed by state law. State agencies that make decisions that could affect people's "rights, duties, and privileges" must have a process for holding contested case hearings. The purpose of these hearings is to provide the decision-makers with the most complete and relevant information they need to make a proper decision. These hearings are like an informal court proceeding. They have three parts:

Perjury is the name of an offence under the Criminal Code. The offence of false evidence under the Penal Code is equivalent.

The South African law of evidence forms part of the adjectival or procedural law of that country. It is based on English common law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Evidence Act 2006</span> Act of Parliament in New Zealand

The Evidence Act 2006 is an Act of the Parliament of New Zealand that codifies the laws of evidence. When enacted, the Act drew together the common law and statutory provisions relating to evidence into one comprehensive scheme, replacing most of the previous evidence law on the admissibility and use of evidence in court proceedings.

References