©The Star (Used by permission)
ARTICLES OF LAW By BHAG SINGH
When a person has pleaded guilty to a charge, it does not necessarily follow that this will be admissible in civil proceedings arising out of the same matter.
WHEN an accident happens, the party who considers it to be the other party’s fault, may feel he has a right to make a claim and that it is a simple and straightforward matter.
Such is the case of a reader who, following a collision which he feels is due to the fault of the other party, has incurred substantial costs in having his car repaired.
Following the accident, the driver of the other car was charged in court where he pleaded guilty. However, when our reader asked to be compensated for the expenses incurred by him, the other party wanted to pay only a part of the amount claimed.
Our reader wants to know why he should not be entitled to the full amount he is claiming? Afterall, the driver of the other car had pleaded guilty in court. Has he not admitted full responsibility?
It is hard to determine the position based on the bare facts disclosed so far.
The legal issues are not that simple and straightforward. The other party may have refused to pay the entire claim for various reasons. For one, the claim may have been excessive.
The other aspect involves this consideration: to what extent is the evidence of a guilty plea admissible in civil proceedings?
Admissible in evidence?
The question is: when a person brings a civil action arising out of damage suffered in an accident, is he entitled to be compensated for what he asked for merely because the other party has been convicted?
The answer to this depends on whether there was a trial and a decision was made by the court after hearing witnesses, and considering the evidence and submissions. Or was it a case where the defendant just pleaded guilty?
In considering these matters, the nature of the offence and the facts of the situation are very important. The eventual decision will be based on the facts before the court as well as the applicable law in the circumstances.
As stated in Re Hardjo Soekatmo (deceased): “It is settled law that a conviction obtained against a defendant in criminal proceedings is inadmissible in evidence in civil proceedings but a plea of guilty being an admission which may support the plaintiff’s case can be admissible”.
Why the distinction
The reason for this is that in the former situation, a decision is made by the court in a criminal proceeding. To accept the decision would amount to an adoption of that decision which has taken into consideration different standards.
When a person pleads guilty, what is relevant is not the conviction but his admission as to the commission of the offence. Section 21 of the Evidence Act 1950 states: “Admissions are relevant and may be proved as against the person who makes them or his representatives in interest.”
However, whilst admissions can be admissible, these are not conclusive. It is for this reason that Section 31 of the Evidence Act 1950 states: “Admissions are not conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but they may operate as estoppels under the provisions hereinafter contained”.
By reason of the fact that the admission of guilt in the face of such a case is not conclusive, our reader has no automatic right to have the court make an award that he be paid whatever he chooses to claim.
As stated in Re Hardjo Soekatmo and particularly in the context of an accident claim: “A plea of guilty is not to be regarded as conclusive, and that it is open to the person who had pleaded to explain, in a subsequent civil trial, why he had so pleaded”.
Whatever weight the court would attach to a plea of guilty as an admission must depend on the circumstances of the case. A defendant may plead guilty for various reasons, for example, to save time and expenses, or to prevent some embarrassing facts from coming out.
In the case cited, the defendant had given reasons for pleading guilty. In any event, the judge noted that the record of conviction did not indicate any particular form of carelessness on his part.
The defendant had pleaded guilty to a statement of facts which merely recited the collision. It was silent as to whether the defendant was wholly negligent or that the other party was not negligent at all.
Thus in that case the court held that the party that claimed to be aggrieved could not rely entirely on the guilty plea to consider its case proved without doing anything else or more.
Otherwise
However, it is not always the case that a guilty plea cannot be relied upon. In certain cases, a court may well rely on a guilty plea in coming to a decision.
In Ong Tua Chor v Lee Beng Tong, a case involving the repealed Control of Rent Act 1966, the landlord sought to evict the tenant for having committed a breach of the provisions of the building by–laws made under the Town Board Enactment (Cap 137) by partitioning the front portion of the ground floor illegally, thereby exposing the landlord to a penalty or fine.
The tenant had pleaded guilty and she was fined RM80. The landlord produced a certified true copy of the charge and the notes recorded by the magistrate.
The court took the view that based on the facts that were disclosed in the charge, the guilty plea by the tenant constituted sufficient admission within the meaning of Section 21 of the Evidence Act 1950, and therefore could be admitted and in consequent be considered.
It must be noted that in some cases, a conviction may be admissible in evidence, but the reliance placed on and the weight attached to such an admission is an entirely separate matter.