The best evidence rule represents a general principle much invoked two centuries ago when the Bench and the Bar were just beginning to be conscious of evidence as a distinct field of law, and to attempt the formulation of its underlying principles.
Its beginnings manifested itself around the years 1699-1700 when Holt CJ in Ford v. Hopkins in allowing a goldsmith's note as evidence against a stranger of the fact that the goldsmith had received money, said that the Court must take notice of the usage of the trade; that "the best proof that the nature of the thing, will afford is only required." The phrase and its application gained currency in the 18th century, which led to its introduction by Gilber as a concept in his book on Evidence, where he stated that "the first, therefore, and the most signal rule in relation to evidence is this; that a man must have the utmost evidence the nature of the fact is capable of."
The best evidence rule means that if there are two ways of proving a matter and one method is more cogent than the other the more cogent method must be adopted. Circumstantial evidence is not to be adduced if there is direct evidence available. Evidence to show that a party consented to a particular matter should not be given by others if the party himself can be called as a witness.
The best evidence rule is the common law rule of evidence which was stated by Lord Hardwicke LC in the case of Omychund v Barker. His Lordship mentioned that “the judges and sages of the law have laid it down that there is but one general rule of evidence, the best that the nature of the case will admit.”
The rule can be divided into two aspects which are the inclusionary aspect and exclusionary aspect. As for inclusionary aspect, if the best evidence is not available, the next best evidence is admitted and it becomes a question of weight. This is according to the case of Omychund v Barker. Deriving from the case of R v Quinn & Bloom, exclusionary aspect is like if the best evidence is not available, the second best evidence cannot be admitted.
However, the best evidence rule has no longer given any effect on the admissibility of evidence in England nowadays. Lord Denning MR, in Garton v Hunter, said that:
“… The only remaining instance of it is that, if an original document is available on one’s hands, one must produce it; that one cannot give secondary evidence by producing a copy. Nowadays we do not confine ourselves to the best evidence. We admit all relevant evidence. The goodness or badness of it goes only to weight, and not to admissibility.”
In our jurisdiction, the Best Evidence Rule falls only within the ambit of a particular type of evidence, and that is, Documentary evidence. The word "best" has been a misnomer, since it has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types evidentiary rules. It does not signify that it is the "most superior" evidence, but more accurately, it is also referred to as "original document rule" or "primary evidence rule".
As stipulated in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, "When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself..." The key therefore, to understanding the Best Evidence Rule is simply to remember that the rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the best evidence is the original document itself (Riano, 2013).
In the case of Bagley v. McMickie, the basic premise justifying the rule is the need to present to the court the exact words of a writing where a slight variation of words may mean a great difference in rights. Another purpose is to exclude uncertainties in the contents of a document caused by the hazards of faulty duplication, or the frailties of human recollection in reproducing its contents.
Hayde Talorong Laws on Evidence in the Philippines
The best evidence rule represents a general principle much invoked two centuries ago when the Bench and the Bar were just beginning to be conscious of evidence as a distinct field of law, and to attempt the formulation of its underlying principles.
ReplyDeleteIts beginnings manifested itself around the years 1699-1700 when Holt CJ in Ford v. Hopkins in allowing a goldsmith's note as evidence against a stranger of the fact that the goldsmith had received money, said that the Court must take notice of the usage of the trade; that "the best proof that the nature of the thing, will afford is only required." The phrase and its application gained currency in the 18th century, which led to its introduction by Gilber as a concept in his book on Evidence, where he stated that "the first, therefore, and the most signal rule in relation to evidence is this; that a man must have the utmost evidence the nature of the fact is capable of."
The best evidence rule means that if there are two ways of proving a matter and one method is more cogent than the other the more cogent method must be adopted. Circumstantial evidence is not to be adduced if there is direct evidence available. Evidence to show that a party consented to a particular matter should not be given by others if the party himself can be called as a witness.
by
LIEW PEI PEI
A132417
The best evidence rule is the common law rule of evidence which was stated by Lord Hardwicke LC in the case of Omychund v Barker. His Lordship mentioned that “the judges and sages of the law have laid it down that there is but one general rule of evidence, the best that the nature of the case will admit.”
ReplyDeleteThe rule can be divided into two aspects which are the inclusionary aspect and exclusionary aspect. As for inclusionary aspect, if the best evidence is not available, the next best evidence is admitted and it becomes a question of weight. This is according to the case of Omychund v Barker. Deriving from the case of R v Quinn & Bloom, exclusionary aspect is like if the best evidence is not available, the second best evidence cannot be admitted.
However, the best evidence rule has no longer given any effect on the admissibility of evidence in England nowadays. Lord Denning MR, in Garton v Hunter, said that:
“… The only remaining instance of it is that, if an original document is available on one’s hands, one must produce it; that one cannot give secondary evidence by producing a copy. Nowadays we do not confine ourselves to the best evidence. We admit all relevant evidence. The goodness or badness of it goes only to weight, and not to admissibility.”
by
NOOR FARAH BINTI ABDOL GHAPOR
A 132590
In our jurisdiction, the Best Evidence Rule falls only within the ambit of a particular type of evidence, and that is, Documentary evidence. The word "best" has been a misnomer, since it has nothing to do with the degree of its probative value in relation to other types evidentiary rules. It does not signify that it is the "most superior" evidence, but more accurately, it is also referred to as "original document rule" or "primary evidence rule".
ReplyDeleteAs stipulated in Section 3 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, "When the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence shall be admissible other than the original document itself..." The key therefore, to understanding the Best Evidence Rule is simply to remember that the rule cannot be invoked unless the contents of a writing is the subject of judicial inquiry, in which case, the best evidence is the original document itself (Riano, 2013).
In the case of Bagley v. McMickie, the basic premise justifying the rule is the need to present to the court the exact words of a writing where a slight variation of words may mean a great difference in rights. Another purpose is to exclude uncertainties in the contents of a document caused by the hazards of faulty duplication, or the frailties of human recollection in reproducing its contents.
Hayde Talorong
Laws on Evidence in the Philippines
Really helpful.. Thanx
ReplyDelete