Character Evidence – SECTION 54
in arrears of his instalments in Jan and Feb.
INTRODUCTION
Under criminal law, a person is presumed innocent until
proven guilty. In support of this presumption, evidence
of good character of the accused is made relevant. It has
been said in some cases that the innocent or criminality
of an accused can easily be judged by looking at his
character and the accused must be allowed to prove his
innocence with the help of his good character.
However, the fact that a person is of bad character is not
relevant under this section for raising general inference
that the accused is likely to have committed the offence
charged. Therefore, the guilt of the accused must be
proved by independent evidence and not only on the
basis of his character.
Situations where evidence of bad characters may be
adduced.
1. Evidence is given of the accused’s good character
by any witness for the defence - ss 54(1)
2. The accused himself gives evidence of his own
good character – ss 54(2)(b)
3. The nature and conduct of the defence involves
imputations on the character of the prosecution
or the prosecution witness – ss 54(2)(b)
4. The accused gives evidence against co-accused –
ss 54(2)(c)
5. The commission or conviction of an offence is
admissible ss 54(2)(a)
EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER
Public Prosecutor v Choo Chuan Wang
Edgar Joseph Jr in disallowing questions put by the
prosecution to the witness as to whether he was a
gangster said at page 1250 that “…the learned
deputy…asked him if he was a gangster but, upon
objection being taken by learned counsel for the defense,
I disallowed the question on the ground that the
question, if answered in the affirmative, would be
evidence of bad character and such evidence would be
inadmissible”.
Lim Kong v PP
Kan Chow deposed that the accused had an outstanding
debt for petrol supplied since 1959 of some $1200. Tan
Oon Cheng gave evidence that the accused had borrowed
$4000 to replace diesel engine in SR 6959 and that he was
Held: The fact that a person was unable for the moment
to satisfy his creditors is not evidence of either criminal or
grave moral misconduct – not a bad character evidence.
GENERAL RULE IN CRIMINAL CASES
GENERALLY, EVIDENCE OF THE BAD CHARACTER OF THE
ACCUSED IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE ITS PREJUDICIAL
NATURE.
Section 54(1) provides:
Previous bad character not relevant except in reply
(1) In criminal proceedings the fact that the accused
person has a bad character is irrelevant; unless
evidence has been given that he has a good
character, in which case it becomes relevant.
Habee Bur Rahman v PP
The appellant contented that prejudicial evidence of bad
character was admitted in evidence which was likely
prejudice the fair trial of appellant.
Held: It is undoubtedly not competent for the prosecution
to adduce evidence tending to show that the accused has
been guilty of criminal acts other that those covered by
the indictment, for the purpose of leading to the
conclusion that the accused is a person likely from his
criminal conduct or character to have committed offence
for which he is being tried.
However, in this case the court did not see any prejudicial
evidence, and that the accused had given evidence of his
good character, hence the court cannot now regard as a
denial of justice the evidence which the defence itself
sought.
Wong Foh Hin v PP (page 287)
If the primary purpose of the character evidence is for a
general relevancy purpose and it incidentally shows that
the accused is of bad character, such bad character
evidence is still admissible.
Facts: Father convicted for murder of daughter, appealed
against conviction on basis that the evidence used by the
prosecutor is not admissible – raised the principle of
Makin v Attorney General
Held: Appeal dismissed, as the evidence objected is
clearly the strongest possible evidence of motive.
Kiew Foo Mui & Ors v PP GENERAL RULE IN CIVIL CASES

Evidence of bad character does not become admissible As a general rule, character evidence is irrelevant in civil
only because the defence failed to object. cases.

EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE
Section 54 of EA
Section 146 of EA
Sharma Kumari a/p Oam Prakash v PP
The appellant, Sharma was tried upon a principal and and
alternative charge under the second and first limb
respectively of s 182 of the PC. Aggrieved with her
conviction and sentence of 12 weeks imprisonment, she
has appealed against conviction and sentence.
The essence of counsel’s submission is that s 54 cannot
be defeated by resort to or misuse of ss 146 and 148.
S 54 is in that part of the Act dealing generally with
character evidence. Section 146 is a specific section as to
questions lawful in cross-examination.
The issue here is whether cross-examination that tends to
show bad character is barred under s 54 even though it is
for the purpose of testing the veracity of the appellant.
Held: it is the trite law that where the words of a statute
are clear there is no room for the court to go beyond
expressed language of the statute.
Section 52 provides in civil cases the fact that the
character of any person concerned is such as to render
probable or improbable any conduct imputed to him is
irrelevant, except so far as his characters appears from
facts otherwise relevant.
Section 55 provides in civil cases the fact that the
character of any person is such as to affect the amount
of damages which he ought to receive is relevant.
Sandison v Malayan Times Ltd & Ors
Evidence of a plaintiff’s character is relevant in the
assessment of damages in a defamation cases.
EXCEPTION TO THE GENERAL RULE
(1) Where the character of parties concerned is an
issue before the court. EG: in cases of
defamation when a defence of justification is
raised.
(2) Where the character of the parties may affect
the amount of damages to be awarded. EG: in
cases such as defamation or breach of promise
to marry.
In most cases other than the exception will inadmissible.

To restrict the meaning the meaning of s 146 by an earlier

and general section such as s 54 would amount to an
amendment of s 146.

The words of ss 54 and 146 are clear. Bad character

evidence per se is not relevant, but the section makes it
clear that the bar can have exceptions.

Section 146 specifically provides that questions may be

put to test his accuracy, veracity or credibility.

Lim Baba v PP

Character evidence is admissible if it relates to a fact in

issue or to matters necessary to be known in order to
determine whether or not the facts in issue existed.