Scribd
Upload
13 views3 pages

Evidence Assessment 2

Uploaded by

dumisiremach360
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
13 views3 pages

Evidence Assessment 2

Uploaded by

dumisiremach360
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

QN1. WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY THE TERM SIMILAR FACTS EVIDENCE?

Provided for in section 16 and 17 of the evidence act of tanzania 1967 R.E 2022 and Zanzibar evidence
act no 9 0f 2016 R.E 2017 on section 13 and 14 respectively.

Section 16 ;facts showing the existence of state of mind or of the body or bodily feeling .this also seen in
zanzibar evidence act no 9 section 13.

Section 17;facts bearing the question whether an act was accidental or intentional .this is also seen in
zanzibar evidence act no 9 section 14.

It means to the evidence of either previous or subsequent acts similar to fact in issue or a relevant fact.

Similar facts is only admissible where it is sought to prove that an act formparts of a series of similar
occurences .A question must be raised whether an act by the accused person was intetional or
accidental or was done on particular knowledge or intention.similar fact evidence is admissible to rebut
the defence of an accident ,mistake or another innocent state of mind.

As such evidence may be used to prove of an offence where it can be shown to form part of series of
occurrences where the accussed is however protected by law from being victimised being known to
commit similar offences .evidence of the previous similar facts has high degree of being prejudiced . in
certain circumstances , it is fair for such evidence to be inadmissible.

The case of MAKIN VS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH WALES (1894)AC 57.In this the body of a baby was
discovered in the background of the house of the accused persons who were a married couple .evidence
showed that they had adopted a baby. Evidence showed that the bodies of other babies similary
adopted by the defendants were found buried in other locations where they had lived.the evidence of
the previous buried babies was found to be admissible and they were convicted.

On appeal it was held that the evidence of the similar previous occurrences was properly admitted as
evidence relevant to the fact in issue.

LORD CHANCELLOR HERSCHELL


“ it is undoubtedly not competent for the prtosecution to adduce evidence tending to show that the
accused had been guilty of criminal acts other than those covered by the indictment for the purpose of
leading to the conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his or her criminal conduct to have
commited the offences for which he is being tried. On the other hand , the mere fact that the adduced
tends toshow the commission of other crimes does not render it inadmissible if it be relevant to an issue
before the jury and it may be so relevant if it bears upon the question whether the acts alleged to
constitute the crime charged in the indictment were designed or accidental or rebut a defense which
would otherwise be open to the accused person.”

SUMMARY

1. As a general rule you do not convict a peron simply on the basis that he would likely have
committed an offence because of his or her previous character.

2. Evidence of the previous character may be relevant if the accused raises defence that the fact in
issue was an accident or anyother defence open to the accused.

It is alson elaborated in the case of HARRIS VS THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS(1952)AC


694.Harris wasn charged with series of 8 larcenies which occurred bewteen May and July 1951. These
thefts occurred in an enclosed market and at the time the theft occurred , the ggates were shut and the
defendant was on duty alone.When the last incident happened , the defendant was found to have been
in the immediate vicinityof the office broken into .he was charged with all the 8 larcenies ,acquitted of
the first seven and convicted on the 8th one.

It was held that the prosecution may adduce all proper evidence which tends to prove the charge
without withholding any evuidence until te accused persson has set out specific defence which calls for
rebuttal.In otherwords , the prosectuion in a given case need to await to know the direction the case
will take inorder to adduce similar fact evidence.

In MAKINDI V R (1961) EA 327,

The appellant was convicted for manslaughter of a boy for whom he stood in loco parentis by beating
him so severely that he died. At the trial, the appellant had raised a defense to the effect that the boy
was epileptic and so had suffered these injuries in the course of an epileptic attack. The prosecution had
then adduced evidence of previous severe beatings of the deceased by the appellant in order to rebut
his defense the issue was whether that evidence was admissible and it was held that that evidence was
admissible and section 6 of the Evidence Act as explaining substantiating the cause of death as well as
under sections 7 and 13 (now section 8 and 14) showing the motive of the appellant to revenge on the
deceased and the appellants’ ill will towards the child.

INCONCLUSION

A court of law should look for that striking similarity between fact in issue and the previous criminal
records alleged against the accused before deciding whether or not to admit the evidence.

You might also like