Title: Admissibility of illegally obtained evidence and fundamental rights in the criminal justice system: a Malaysian perspective

Authors: K. Karunanithi; Ramalinggam Rajamanickam

Addresses: Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia ' Faculty of Law, National University of Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia

Abstract: The long-standing rules of admissibility have been the basis for the admission and exclusion of illegally obtained evidence within the Malaysian criminal justice system. Evidence obtained illegally but relevant to the matter at issue is deemed admissible. For decades, courts have oriented their discretion to admit illegally obtained evidence based on the relevancy test, and equally, courts have demonstrated their ability to exercise the same discretionary power to exclude gravely prejudicial evidence. Explorative analysis reveals that discretion is rarely exercised to exclude illegally obtained evidence. Considerably, the Constitutional Law of Fundamental Rights has been an alternative approach in justifying the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, but its scope and distinct conception have not reached a decisive position. The evolutionary notion of protecting individual rights may gain considerable support for courts to exercise their sense of fairness to exclude unconstitutional evidence in guaranteeing one's constitutional rights.

Keywords: admissibility; illegally; evidence; individual rights; fairness.

DOI: 10.1504/IJHRCS.2024.136081

International Journal of Human Rights and Constitutional Studies, 2024 Vol.11 No.1, pp.43 - 61

Received: 19 Jul 2022
Accepted: 26 Jul 2022
Published online: 16 Jan 2024 *

Full-text access for editors Full-text access for subscribers Purchase this article Comment on this article