Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor
Evidence of a statement made to a witness by another person is not hearsay where it is tendered not to prove the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made, such as to support a defence of duress.
Facts
Mr Subramaniam was charged in Malaya with possession of ammunition, which carried the death penalty. He said that he had been captured by terrorists and acted under duress, and he wished to give evidence of the threats that the terrorists had made to him. The trial judge ruled that the evidence of what the terrorists had said was inadmissible hearsay, and he was convicted.
Legal principle
The Privy Council allowed the appeal. Mr LMD de Silva said that 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 evidence of the threats was relevant to whether he had acted under duress, regardless of whether the terrorists intended to carry out their threats, so it should have been admitted.
Related cases on hearsay
- Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23
- Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] AC 1001
- R v Andrews [1987] AC 281
- R v Blastland [1986] AC 41
- R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] 2 AC 373
- R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228
- R v Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509
- R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
