Question 1A. (a)
Communications between an accused and his counsel are protected under S 128 (1).[1] The accused person’s counsel is not expected to provide any information pertaining to the case that he obtained from the accused. All communications between the lawyer and the accused person, in any form either written or oral, cannot be admitted in the case against the accused person because this is privileged information. The only way this evidence can be admitted is if the accused person waivers his privileged rights. In Tentat the Court held that confidential emails could not be disclosed in court as evidence against an accused person.[2] In the recent celebrated ruling, the High Court in HT S.R.L stated that leaked emails that contained confidential information between the party and their lawyer was privileged information. Such information could not be admitted in the case as evidence against the party.[3]
In the case against Max, the emails fall under the legal advice privilege as provided for under Section 128 of the Evidence Act.
Question 1A (b)
Although the communications between an accused person with his counsel are protected, the law provides that where such communications are for the furtherance of any illegal purpose then such evidence shall not be protected.[4] Furthermore any fact that the lawyer observes that indicates that a crime has been committed apart from the one the accused person is being prosecuted for shall not be considered as protected evidence.[5] In the case provided, the information that Max has also stolen more jewelry from Ann without her knowledge shall not be treated as privileged evidence and can be admissible in court as evidence against Max.
Question 1A (c)
In criminal proceedings, the prosecution is allowed to bring similar fact evidence against the accused person. Similar fact evidence is any evidence that helps build the prosecutor’s case against the person. Evidence that the accused person has in the past been involved in criminal activities similar to the present case is considered as similar fact evidence. Similar fact evidence is admissible before the court.[6] However, the Court exercise its discretion when considering the admissibility of similar fact evidence. This is to ensure that the evidence is more probative as opposed to being prejudicial.
Furthermore, similar fact evidence is only admissible if the relevant to prove the state of mind of the accused person in relation to the charge against him. As was in the case of R v Ball where the court accepted the evidence of previous sexual encounters between a brother and a sister in order to prove a separate charge of incestuous relations in the family.[7]
Question 1A (d)
Under Section 22 (1) accused persons are required to appear before the police for interrogations pertaining to the charges against him.[8] The police have the right to examine the accused person and the accused person’s confessions during these examinations are admissible in court. The Court in Kwek Seow Hock v Public Prosecutor explaining the law of Section 22 (2) CPP stated that a court should exercise its discretion where an accused person, while being interrogated by the police, failed to mention a fact that would prove their innocence.[9]
However, the accused person must be duly informed of the charge against him and farther the police must inform him that although they may exercise their right to remain silent, remaining silent may have consequences.[10] The law however states that the police are prohibited against threatening the accused person or using violence to have the accused person confess to a crime.[11] The prosecution is required under the law to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence against the accused person was given voluntarily during the interrogation.[12] A statement that was given due to pressure, coercion, a threat or inducement shall not be considered as being voluntary and hence shall not be admissible.[13] Additionally, the accused person has a right not to say or admit any self-incriminating statements.
References.
Legislation.
Criminal Procedure Code Cap 68
Evidence Act Cap 97
Case law.
Assathambly s/o Karupiah v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR (R) 1030; [1998] SGHC 104
HT S.R.L v Wee Shuo Woon [2016] SGHC 15
Public Prosecutor v BDA [2018] SGHC 72
Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24
R v Ball [1989] Crim. LR 730
Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Multiple Granite Pte Ltd and others [2009] 1 SLR (R) 42 (HC)
[1] Evidence Act Cap 97
[2] Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Multiple Granite Pte Ltd and others [2009] 1 SLR (R) 42 (HC)
[3] HT S.R.L v Wee Shuo Woon [2016] SGHC 15
[4] S 128 (2) (a), Evidence Act Cap 97
[5] S 128 (2) (b), Evidence Act Cap 97
[6] Section 15 & 14, Evidence Act Cap 97
[7] R v Ball [1989] Crim. LR 730
[8] Criminal Procedure Code Cap 68
[9] Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24
[10] Assathambly s/o Karupiah v Public Prosecutor [1998] 1 SLR (R) 1030; [1998] SGHC 104
[11] Section 23, Criminal Procedure Code Cap 68
[12] Public Prosecutor v BDA [2018] SGHC 72
[13] Section 258 (3), Criminal Procedure Code Cap 68
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )