Misplaced Pages

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Subramaniam v. Public Prosecutor, Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, 1 W.L.R. 965 (1956), is a leading Privy Council case that defined the scope of the hearsay rule. It was a case heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of the Federation of Malaya.

Background

Subramaniam was charged with possession of ammunition for the purpose of helping a terrorist enemy, which would carry a sentence of death. He pleaded a defense of duress, claiming that he had no choice as the terrorists had threatened to kill him if he did not follow through with their requests. As part of the defense, he wanted to testify about these conversations he had with the terrorists.

At trial these conversations were found to be hearsay and excluded. On appeal the decision was overturned and the evidence was admitted on the basis that the conversation was not hearsay. Evidence is only hearsay if the purpose of submitting the evidence is to prove the contents of the statements were true - in this case, it did not matter that the statements were true, only that they were said to Subramaniam.

The issue for the Court was whether the testimony would constitute hearsay. The Privy Council held that the statements were not hearsay and allowed the appeal.

Opinion of the Court

The Privy Council characterized the hearsay rule as follows:

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 fact that the statement was made, quite apart from its truth, is frequently relevant in considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or of some other person in whose presence the statement was made.

The Council found that since the statements were not used in order to prove one of the issues of law, rather it was in order to prove whether the defendant was reasonable in his actions, the hearsay rule should not apply. The truth of the statements made by the terrorists were not significant, it is merely the fact that they said something that would create a reasonable apprehension in the defendant.

Notably, this case does not deal with an exception to the hearsay rule. Rather, the case deals with evidence which, despite being a statement made outside of the court room by another person, is not hearsay at all.

Aftermath

The Council's characterization of the hearsay rule has since become the most often cited definition in the Commonwealth.

This articulation of the hearsay rule was adopted in Canada in the case of R. v. Wildman (1981), 60 CCC (2d) 289 (Ont CA).

It is unclear what ultimately happened to the accused.

References

1. Park, Roger; Friedman, Richard (2019). Evidence: Cases and Materials. Foundation Press. pp. 203–204. ISBN 978-1634603423.
2. "Wildman v. R., 1981 CanLII 86 (ON CA)". CanLII.
3. "Reprieve but he is in jail". The Straits Times. 18 May 1956.

v t e Communism in Malaysia and Singapore
Wars and incidents	Wars Malayan campaign Anti-Japanese resistance movement Fourteen Days' War Vietnam War Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation Communist insurgency Sarawak Malaysia (1968-1989) Thailand Malayan Emergency Background & causes Briggs Plan New village Special Operations Volunteer Force Commonwealth Military Involvement Southern Rhodesia Australia New Zealand Incidents Sungai Siput incident Death of Lau Yew Labis incident Penang ambush Assassination of Sir Henry Gurney Bukit Kepong incident Battle of Semur River Batang Kali massacre Operation Termite Pipeline ambush The Templer Plan Operation Coldstore Assassination of Abdul Rahman Hashim Assassination of Khoo Chong Kong Bombing of National Monument Gubir shootdown Operation Spectrum
Organisations	South Seas Communist Party Malayan Peoples' Anti-Japanese Army Malayan National Liberation Army 10th Malay Regiment Malayan Communist Party Min Yuen Revolutionary Faction MPLF CPM/ML Malaysian Communist Party Singapore Federation of Trade Unions North Kalimantan Communist Party
Key people	Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore Chin Peng Abdullah CD Lai Teck Shamsiah Fakeh Ahmad Boestamam Rashid Maidin Mokhtaruddin Lasso Kamarulzaman Teh Abu Samah Mohd Kassim Musa Ahmad Ibrahim Chik S. A. Ganapathy Suriani Abdullah Lau Yew Lee Meng Chen Tien Yeung Kwo Fong Chong Pik Eu Chooi Yip Lim Chin Siong Wahi Annuar Mat Indera R. G. Balan P. Veerasenan Devan Nair Malaysian Borneo Bong Kee Chok Yang Chu Chung Wen Ming Chyuan Yap Choon Hau Lam Wah Kwai Ang Chu Ting Wong Lieng Kui Cheung Ah Wah
Related topics	Calcutta Southeast Asian Youth Conference University Socialist Club Domino theory Agent Orange Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor Malaysia–Soviet Union relations China–Malaysia relations China–Singapore relations Barisan Sosialis Brunei revolt Chia Thye Poh Siddiq Ghouse Sarawak United Peoples' Party Bidong Island Japanese Red Army 1975 AIA building hostage crisis MH653 Laju incident Lambeth slavery case
Peace agreements	Baling Talks Peace Declaration of Sri Aman 1973 Peace Agreement of Hat Yai 1989
In popular culture	Operation Malaya (1953 documentary) A Piece of Ribbon (1963 play) The 7th Dawn (1964 drama) The Last Communist (2006 film) Apa Khabar Orang Kampung (2007 film) 29 Februari (2012 film) Tanda Putera (2013 film) The Garden of Evening Mists (2011 novel) The New Village (2015 film) The Garden of Evening Mists (2019 film)
Communism portal Malaysia portal Singapore portal

• Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases
• 1956 in case law
• Malaysian case law
• Hearsay
• Malayan Emergency