Hearsay Evidence
1. Hearsay evidence rule in Malaysia
The general hearsay rule is that a statement made by a person not called as a witness is inadmissible to prove the truth of the facts stated and extends to oral evidence as to statements in documents.1 Where oral evidence is relied on, it must be direct in all cases.2 Section 603 has thus codified the rule against hearsay evidence. “Hearsay” does not mean that no witness can be allowed to depose anything which he has heard said by anyone else.4 It is secondary evidence of any oral statement. Whether an out of court assertion amounts to hearsay depends on the purpose of tendering the statement.5 In Subramaniam v PP6, Privy Council held:
Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made.
The concept of hearsay is not always a straightforward one, as exemplified in Ng Lai Huat v PP7, where the judge had reversed his own ruling on the admissibility of an out-of-court assertion. Although it was initially ruled that the evidence of the former Director-General of Prisons in relation to Jimmy Chua’s purported demands did not amount to hearsay, the judge subsequently reversed his ruling and held otherwise, on the basis that the purpose of tendering the statement was to establish the truth of its contents.8
Hearsay evidence which ought to have been rejected does not become admissible merely because no objection was taken earlier.9 Hearsay assertions can be a conduct10 or a document. Documentary hearsay is generally inadmissible.11 The implied assertions of hearsay are statements or conduct which rest on some assumption of facts believed by the maker of the statement or the doer of the act
The general hearsay rule is that a statement made by a person not called as a witness is inadmissible to prove the truth of the facts stated and extends to oral evidence as to statements in documents.1 Where oral evidence is relied on, it must be direct in all cases.2 Section 603 has thus codified the rule against hearsay evidence. “Hearsay” does not mean that no witness can be allowed to depose anything which he has heard said by anyone else.4 It is secondary evidence of any oral statement. Whether an out of court assertion amounts to hearsay depends on the purpose of tendering the statement.5 In Subramaniam v PP6, Privy Council held:
Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made.
The concept of hearsay is not always a straightforward one, as exemplified in Ng Lai Huat v PP7, where the judge had reversed his own ruling on the admissibility of an out-of-court assertion. Although it was initially ruled that the evidence of the former Director-General of Prisons in relation to Jimmy Chua’s purported demands did not amount to hearsay, the judge subsequently reversed his ruling and held otherwise, on the basis that the purpose of tendering the statement was to establish the truth of its contents.8
Hearsay evidence which ought to have been rejected does not become admissible merely because no objection was taken earlier.9 Hearsay assertions can be a conduct10 or a document. Documentary hearsay is generally inadmissible.11 The implied assertions of hearsay are statements or conduct which rest on some assumption of facts believed by the maker of the statement or the doer of the act