There is, at common law, a doctrine “as old as the modern confession rule itself”, which Wigmore called the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent facts and which Cowen and Carter said “might be more felicitously called the doctrine of confirmation by consequently discovered facts”. Whatever this doctrine may be called, the common law is admittedly confused and uncertain. In the Evidence Acts of Singapore and Malaysia,5 the doctrine is seemingly codified in section 27, but section 27 is not free from difficulty either. It is proposed in this article to examine the meaning and scope of the doctrine as expressed in this provision. It is the writer’s contention that this provision, although often involved in cases where a statement to the police is excluded from evidence, is equally often misunderstood.