Not all relevant evidence is of equal value

when determining disputed facts. Some is

very important and thus of high cogency or
weight. Other relevant evidence is much
less significant, and thus of low weight.
As per Lord Steyn in R v A (No. 2) [2002]
1 AC 45:
Relevance and sufficiency of proof are
different things.

With reference to the

above, discuss the
distinction between
relevancy and weight of
evidence.

WHAT IS RELEVANCY?

RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Fact that is relevant to prove the fact in issue to be submitted to the court.

Evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.

For evidence to be relevant, there must be some logical connection between it and the fact its offered to
prove or disprove.

RELEVANCY

One of the concept that is very important in understanding the law of evidence which without it the
evidence law cannot operate.

Degree of connection between a fact that is given in evidence and issue to be proved.

Sec. 5: Only relevant facts can be produced as evidence. A fact is said to be relevant when it is
connected with another fact so as to make the other more or less probable (Sec. 3)

E.g: In crime, facts that can prove actus reus and mens rea would make its relevancy more probable.

Ken is charged with assaulting Kevin with a knife. PP(a) the knife allegedly used in the assault, (b) a
photograph of Kevin taken minutes after the fight, showing cuts on his face and arms, and (c) the
blood-soaked T-shirt that Kevin was wearing at the time of the fight. Then court is likely to admit the
knife and the photograph into evidence to prove the act of Ken as an aggressor of the fight but might
exclude the shirt as the shirt doesnt provide much information about how the events unfolded and
will give unduly prejudicial effect.

TWO TEST

RELEVANCY IS A QUESTION OF LAW

The judge may also ask question to the party proposing to give evidence in relation to the manner
alleged and if proved would be relevant and the judge may then decide as to its admissibility.
Therefore, it is evident before us that, the court is being manifested with the power to exclude
evidence which is irrelevant on the basis that it will cause a high prejudicial effect against the
accused.

Eg : For example,Sitisaw thatAhmadhad killedVinniewith a knife. ThenSititold what he saw

toAmirul. Here,Amirul cannot become a witness as he did not see the incident himself. The fact
thatAmirul heard fromSitithatAhmadhad murderedVinniewith a knife is relevant as it is based on
logic and common sense. However, such evidence generally is not admissible in the court as it is
forbidden by the Law of Evidence since hearsay evidence is generally excluded even though
relevant.

Case : PP v Dato Seri anwar Ibrahim (No 3) [1999] 2 MLJ 1

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE

The strength, value and believability of evidence presented on a factual issue by one party
as compared to evidence introduced by the other party.

It is a qualitative assessment of the probative value(relevant) evidence which admissible

evidence has in relation to the fact in issue - also known as sufficiency of proof.

Can only be done once evidence has been rendered relevant and admissible.

Must be noted that not all relevant evidence has an equal value because relevancy and weight of
evidence are two different things.

Civil lawsuit requires both parties to offers more convincing evidence and its probable truth, and not
on the amount of evidence.

Eg : A signed document of Sales and Purchase Agreement may outweigh the intention of the parties
intended rather than dozen witnesses with hazy testimony.

However, weight of evidence required in civil cases is contrasted with criminal cases as more severe
test required to prove the conviction is beyond reasonable doubt

WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A QUESTION OF

FACT

It is a question of fact to be determined based on the circumstances of

each case:

Type of evidence
Quality of evidence
Demeanour of witnesses

Evidence which carries more convincing and probable truth bears more
weight upon the case.

Case: Dato Seri Anwar Ibrahim v PP (2014)

Relevancy and weight of evidence are

distinct matters:
R v A: A woman who was living in the same flat with her boyfriend and the accused, a friend, had allegedly
been raped by the accused along a riverbank. The accused alleged that the intercourse was consensual as the
pair had supposedly been having an affair. The issue was in regards to the tendering of two forms of evidence:
1. Evidence of sexual history with other men

Irrelevant to the issue whether the victim consented to sexual intercourse on the occasion alleged in the
indictment or to her credibility, thus bearing no weight on the case.

2. Evidence of sexual history with the accused

Though it is logically relevant to the issue, it cannot prove that the victim consented to the rape in question.

Relevance and sufficiency of proof are different things.

To be relevant the evidence need merely have some tendency in logic and common sense to advance the
proposition in issue.

Although the evidence is relevant and admissible, it is not sufficient to prove that that the victim consented
to the sexual intercourse merely because of a supposed sexual history with the accused.

TAKE NOTE :

Relevant evidence are facts that makes the existence or non-existence of another fact more
or less probable.

Weight of evidence is the satisfaction of evidence that has been admitted to a standard
determined by the judge.

Thus, relevancy is a question of law where the evidence must be so connected to the fact in
issue for it to be admissible to the court and only after that the weight of evidence (question
of fact) will come in hand as court has to decide how much weight it carries based on it
circumstances.