Circumstantial Evidence

Evidence is separated into two categories:-

• Direct Evidence

Evidence which is attested directly by witnesses, things or documents.

• Circumstantial Evidence

All other forms of evidence.

It should be noted that the nature of circumstantial evidence is weak, leading to various inferences being drawn from the set of facts. However, it may still be possible to secure convictions.

Similar Facts Evidence

The Principle of Similar Fact Evidence has been well outlined in Section 11(b), Section 14 and Section 15 of the Malaysian Evidence Act 1950. Its scope and application by the Malaysian Courts have always come under close scrutiny and comments as the Malaysian Judiciary often adopts a critical and analytical approach when deciding on the question of admissibility of such evidence.

The modern similar fact principle was formulated in the case of Makin v. Attorney General for New South Wales,1894 (AC 57, 65). In this case Lord Herschell reaffirmed the presumption that similar fact evidence would not normally be admitted. He went on to outline the exceptional circumstances in which this exclusionary principle could be overridden. Evidence of similar facts could not be admitted merely because it seemed relevant to the count on the indictment, but only if it was both relevant and probative.