Evidence (Amendment) Bill

In any proceedings a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated therein of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question.(2) The said conditions are —

that the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by any body, whether corporate or not, or by any individual;

that over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived;

that throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and

that the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities.(3) Where over a period the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether —

by a combination of computers operating over that period; or

by different computers operating in succession over that period; or

by different combinations of computers operating in succession over that period; or

in any other manner involving the successive operation over that period, in whatever order, of one or more computers and one or more combinations of computers,all the computers used for that purpose during that period shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as constituting a single computer; and references in this Act to a computer shall be construed accordingly.(4) In any proceedings where it is desired to give a statement in evidence by virtue of this section, a certificate doing any of the following things, that is to say: —

identifying the document containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced;

giving such particulars of any device involved in the production of that document as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the document was produced by a computer;

dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate,and purporting to be signed by a person holding a responsible position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this subsection it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it.(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), in any such proceedings as are therein mentioned the court may for special cause require oral evidence to be given of any matter of which evidence could ordinarily be given by means of a certificate under that subsection.(6) If any person in a certificate tendered in evidence in any proceedings by virtue of subsection (4) intentionally makes a statement material in those proceedings which he knows to be false or does not believe to be true, he shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine, or to both such imprisonment and fine.(7) For the purposes of this Act —

information shall be taken to be supplied to a computer if it is supplied thereto in any appropriate form and whether it is so supplied directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment;

where, in the course of activities carried on by any individual or body, whether corporate or not, information is supplied with a view to its being stored or processed for the purposes of those activities by a computer operated otherwise than in the course of those activities, that information, if duly supplied to that computer, shall be taken to be supplied to it in the course of those activities;

a document shall be taken to have been produced by a computer whether it was produced by it directly or (with or without human intervention) by means of any appropriate equipment.(8) Subject to subsection (3), in this Act “computer” means any device for storing and processing information, and any reference to information being derived from other information is a reference to its being derived therefrom by calculation, comparison or any other process.Provisions supplementary to section 34A34B.—

Where in any proceedings a statement contained in a document is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 34A, it may be proved by the production of that document or (whether or not that document is still in existence) by the production of a copy of that document, or of the material part thereof, authenticated in such manner as the court may approve.(2) For the purpose of deciding whether or not a statement is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 34A, the court may draw any reasonable inference from the circumstances in which the statement was made or otherwise came into being or from any other circumstances, including, in the case of a statement contained in a document, the form and contents of that document.(3) In estimating the weight, if any, to be attached to a statement admissible in evidence by virtue of section 34A, regard shall be had to all the circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the accuracy or otherwise of the statement and, in particular, to the question whether or not the information which the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from was supplied to the relevant computer, or recorded for the purpose of being supplied thereto, contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the facts dealt with in that information, and to the question whether or not any person concerned with the supply of information to that computer or with the operation of that computer or any equipment by means of which the document containing the statement was produced by it, had any incentive to conceal or misrepresent the facts.”.

In any criminal proceedings the accused may —

personally or by his advocate ask questions of any witness with a view to establishing directly or by implication that he is generally or in a particular respect a person of good disposition or reputation; or

himself give evidence tending to establish directly or by implication that he is generally or in a particular respect such a person; or

call a witness to give any such evidence,but where any of these things has been done, the prosecution may call, and any person jointly charged with the accused may call or himself give, evidence to establish, that the accused is a person of bad disposition or reputation, and the prosecution or any person so charged may in cross-examining any witness (including, where he gives evidence, the accused) ask him questions with a view to establishing that fact.(2) Where by virtue of this section a party is entitled to call evidence to establish that the accused is a person of bad disposition or reputation, that party may call evidence of his previous convictions, if any, whether or not that party calls any other evidence for that purpose; and where by virtue of this section a party is entitled in cross-examining the accused to ask him questions with a view to establishing that he is such a person, subsection (4) of section 120 shall not apply in relation to his cross-examination by that party.”.

by deleting subsection (3) thereof and substituting therefor the following: —“(3) In any criminal proceedings the accused shall be competent to give evidence on behalf of himself or any person jointly charged with him, but shall not be compellable to do so.”; and

by inserting immediately after subsection (3) thereof the following new subsections: —“(4) Where in any criminal proceedings the accused gives evidence, then, subject to the provisions of this section and section 54, he shall not in cross-examination be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question tending to reveal to the court —

the fact that he has committed, or has been charged with or convicted or acquitted of, any offence other than the offence charged; or

the fact that he is generally or in a particular respect a person of bad disposition or reputation.(5) Subsection (4) shall not apply to a question tending to reveal to the court a fact about the accused such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) thereof if evidence of that fact is (by virtue of section 14 or 15 or of section 369 or 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 113) or of any other written law) admissible for the purpose of proving the commission by him of the offence charged.(6) Where in any criminal proceedings in which two or more persons are jointly charged, any of the accused gives evidence, subsection (4) shall not in his case apply to any question tending to reveal to the court a fact about him such as is mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) thereof if evidence of that fact is admissible for the purpose of showing any other of the accused to be not guilty of the offence with which that other is charged.(7) Subsection (4) shall not apply if —

the accused has personally or by his advocate asked any witness for the prosecution or for a person jointly charged with him any question concerning the witness’s conduct on any occasion or as to whether the witness has committed, or has been charged with or convicted or acquitted of, any offence; and

the court is of the opinion that the main purpose of that question was to raise an issue as to the witness’s credibility,but the court shall not permit a question falling within subsection (4) to be put to the accused by virtue of this subsection unless it is of the opinion that the question is relevant to his credibility as a witness.(8) Subsection (4) shall not apply where the accused has himself given evidence against any person jointly charged with him in the same proceedings.”.

he shall not be entitled to refuse to answer a question or produce a document or thing on the ground that to do so would tend to prove the commission by him of the offence charged; and

except as regards any question, document or thing which in the opinion of the court is relevant solely or mainly to the accused’s credibility as a witness (not being, in the case of a question, one asked by virtue of section 54), he shall not be entitled to refuse to answer a question or produce a document or thing on the ground that to do so would —

tend to expose him to proceedings for some other offence or for the recovery of a penalty; or

tend to expose his wife or husband to proceedings for an offence or for the recovery of a penalty.(5) Where a person being the wife or husband of the accused gives evidence in any criminal proceedings, that person —

shall not be entitled to refuse to answer a question or produce a document or thing on the ground that to do so would tend to prove the commission by the accused of the offence charged; and

except as regards any question, document or thing which in the opinion of the court is relevant solely or mainly to that person’s credibility as a witness, shall not be entitled to refuse to answer a question or produce a document or thing on the ground that to do so would tend to expose her or him to proceedings as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (b) of subsection (4).(6) Any reference in this section to proceedings for the recovery of a penalty includes a reference to civil proceedings therefor.”.

by renumbering the section as subsection (1);

by deleting the illustration thereto; and

by inserting immediately after subsection (1) thereof the following new subsection: —“(2) Any rule of law or practice whereby in criminal proceedings the evidence of one witness is incapable of corroborating the evidence of another witness is hereby abrogated.”.