817861
Beschreibung
Mindmap von Usman Zafar, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von Usman Zafar
vor mehr als 10 Jahre
|
|
Hearsay
- Examples
- Sparks v R - it was a coloured boy.
- Subramiam - evidence of threats
to show reasons for action and
not facts of the matter
- Patel v Controller of
Customs - cournty of
origin label is hearsay.
- R v Gibson - unidentified
woman pointing to accused
- Ratten v R - phone call to police by
wife not hearsay but to show state of
mind of the victim
- Sparks v R - it was a coloured boy.
- Justification
- not under oath so no
appreciation that they
are required to tell the
truth
- no oppurtunity for
cross examination -
it is a defendants
right
- risk of errors in transmission
- distortion of tone, emphasis
or exaggaration may convey
a misleading impression
- easy to manufacture a statement
- not under oath so no
appreciation that they
are required to tell the
truth
- definition
- 'an assertion other one made
by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings
which is tendered as evidence
of the matters stated - R V
Sharp
- evidence by a witness of what
another person stated on a prior
occassion is inadmissible as
evidence for the purposes of proving
that any fcat stated by that person
on such prior occassion is true, but is
admissible for any other relevsnt
person. (Murphy on Evidence)
- made by a person not in court which is repeated in court
- for the purposes of proving that the statement is true
- 'an assertion other one made
by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings
which is tendered as evidence
of the matters stated - R V
Sharp
- Implied assertions - R v Kearley states
they are hearsay - s.115 (3) says they
are not but probable limited application
- civil evidence act 1995 s.1 ...
evidence shall not be excluded on
the grounds that it is hearsay.
- in this act, hearsay means a
statement made otherwise than
by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings which
is tendered as evidence of the
matters stated
- in this act, hearsay means a
statement made otherwise than
by a person while giving oral
evidence in the proceedings which
is tendered as evidence of the
matters stated
- CJA 2003 s.114: hearsay only admissible if:
- (a) any provision of this chapter or any
othe statutory proviison makesit admissible
- main exceptions to found in s.116 and 117
- 116 - where witness is unavailbale, the
eprson who made the statement is identified
to the courts satisfaction and subject to 5
condtions
- dead
- unfit because of bodily or
mental condition
- outside of UK and not reasonably
practicable to secure attendance
- R v Casstillo: number ofactors
including how prejudicail to the
defendant and the reaons for
non attendance and expense
and inconvenience
- R v Casstillo: number ofactors
including how prejudicail to the
defendant and the reaons for
non attendance and expense
and inconvenience
- although reasonably practicable steps have
been taken, the perosn cannot be found
- through fear, the relevant person does give or
does not continue to give oral evidence in the
proceedings and the court gives leave for the
statement to be given into evidence
- R v Martin: sufficiently wide to cover even
mistaken belief; words are expressing in
extremely wide form designed to combat an
evil
- R v Docherty: the judge must
perform a balaicg exercise of
prejudice to prosectuion and
defence
- R v Martin: sufficiently wide to cover even
mistaken belief; words are expressing in
extremely wide form designed to combat an
evil
- dead
- 117 (2)- business and other documents -
admissible if recieved or created during the
course of a trade, business, profession or
other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or
unpaid office; he had or may reasonably be
supposed to hvae had some perosnaledge of
the matters ... each perosn to whom the
information was supplied must hvae recieved
in the course of trade etc
- 117 (4) and (5) obtained for puroses
of a pending or contemplated criminal
proceedings or for a criminal
investigation any of the five
conditions of s.116(2) are satisfied or
relevant person cannoth be reasonbly
expected to have recollction (length of
time and all othe circumstances
wsince when he supplied statement
- 117 (4) and (5) obtained for puroses
of a pending or contemplated criminal
proceedings or for a criminal
investigation any of the five
conditions of s.116(2) are satisfied or
relevant person cannoth be reasonbly
expected to have recollction (length of
time and all othe circumstances
wsince when he supplied statement
- 116 - where witness is unavailbale, the
eprson who made the statement is identified
to the courts satisfaction and subject to 5
condtions
- main exceptions to found in s.116 and 117
- (b) any rule
preserved by s.118
makes it adissible
- 118 (1) public owrks e.g. history books,
scientific works, dictionaries, maps,
registers, records of courts, evidenc
realting to age, family tradition,
character evidence, confession
evidece, expert evidence, evidence of
common enterprise
- s.118 (4) Res gestae ... statement
made when individual was so
emotionally overpowered by an event
that the possibility of concontion or
distortion can be disregarded...or the
statement the statement accomapnied
an act which can be properly
evaulated as evidence only if
considered in conjuction with the
statement ... or the statement relates to
physical sensation or mental state such
as intention emtotion
- R v Andrews ... few minutes after being
stbbed he identifies attacker to police
officer ... instinctive, spontaneous response
to a startling or dramatic occurence in
which the victim had been deeply involved
... judge must be satisfied there was no
possibility of malice
- R v Nye & Loan - after an
RTA - was there any real
possibility of error?
- Tobi v Nicholas: 20 mins
after a relatively minor
RTA ...must dominate the
mind of the perosn making
the statememtn ... must be
startling or dramatic ...
- R v Carnall ... murder
victim crawling for one
hour ... any real possibility
of concoction or distorion
- R v McCay: indentification of witness
at witness parade ... statement
accompanied a relevant act and eas
necessary to explian that act ...
relevant identity ofassailant and not
identification of suspect by witness
- R v Moghal - declared intent to
murder at family conference six
months earlier
- R v Gilfoyle: fabricated suicide
note ... state of mind.
- R v Andrews ... few minutes after being
stbbed he identifies attacker to police
officer ... instinctive, spontaneous response
to a startling or dramatic occurence in
which the victim had been deeply involved
... judge must be satisfied there was no
possibility of malice
- 118 (1) public owrks e.g. history books,
scientific works, dictionaries, maps,
registers, records of courts, evidenc
realting to age, family tradition,
character evidence, confession
evidece, expert evidence, evidence of
common enterprise
- (c) all parties
agree to it being
made admissible.
- Would arise where a witness
statement is presented into
evidence under CJA 1967 s.9
- written statement admissible if:
statement signed by person who made it,
contains declaration that its true to the
best of his belief, the statement is
tendered before proceedings and none of
the parties within seven days objects.
- written statement admissible if:
statement signed by person who made it,
contains declaration that its true to the
best of his belief, the statement is
tendered before proceedings and none of
the parties within seven days objects.
- Would arise where a witness
statement is presented into
evidence under CJA 1967 s.9
- (d) the court is satisfied that is in the
interests of jsutice for it to be admissible
- (114(2) court must have regad to following factors and
any others it considers relevant: probative
value; how valuable is it to understand other
issues in the case; how important is the other
evidence in the context of the case as a whole;
circumstances in which statement was made;
reliability of maker and statement; oral evidence
can be given? if not, why not? anount of
difficulty involved in challenging statement;
extent to which that difficulty would prejudice
party facing it.
- R v Musone - hearsay
evidence of other
prisioner admitting
guilt.
- R v GJ ... allegations of
abuse in family
- R v Musone - hearsay
evidence of other
prisioner admitting
guilt.
- (114(2) court must have regad to following factors and
any others it considers relevant: probative
value; how valuable is it to understand other
issues in the case; how important is the other
evidence in the context of the case as a whole;
circumstances in which statement was made;
reliability of maker and statement; oral evidence
can be given? if not, why not? anount of
difficulty involved in challenging statement;
extent to which that difficulty would prejudice
party facing it.
- (a) any provision of this chapter or any
othe statutory proviison makesit admissible
- S.116 issues
- Enter text here
- Enter text here
Möchten Sie kostenlos Ihre eigenen Mindmaps mit GoConqr erstellen? Mehr erfahren.