Assertions, oral or in writing, made out of court are regarded as Hearsay
Lord Wilberforce; Subramaniam [1956] 1 WLR 965,
970:
"Assertions other than one made by a person
while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is
inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted".
As per Mason CJ in Walton (1989) 166 CLR 283:
As per Mason CJ in Walton (1989) 166 CLR 283: It is
hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the
evidence is to establish the truth of what is
contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and
is admissible when it is proposed to establish by
the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but
the fact that it was made.
Rational for Hearsay?
Lord Normand: Teper v
The Queen (1952) 1 AC
480
(1) It is not the best evidence and (2) it is not
delivered on oath. The (3) truthfulness and accuracy
of the person whose words are spoken to by another
witness cannot be tested by cross‐examination, and
(4) the light which his demeanour would throw on his
testimony is lost.
Purpose of hearsay?
Applies t p both prosecution and Defence
R v Turner (1975)
61 Cr App R 67.
Myers v DPP [1965]1 AC 100
If the only relevance is the
truth of the facts contained
in the assertion and it is
being tendered to prove
those facts the assertion
will be inadmissible
hearsay
Sccope (applies to)
(i) Express assertions ‐ verbal,
non‐verbal/conduct and
written
(ii) Implied assertions: R v
Walton (1989) 166 CLR 283,
292-293 and 303-304; R v Benz
(1989) 168 CLR 110, 118 and
143; R v Pollitt (1992) 174 CLR
558, 566-567, 595 and 620 and
R v Rose (2002) 55 NSWLR 701
clearly extend the rule to
so-called implied hearsay.
(iii) But the hearsay rule does not apply to
machine generated representations or animal
communications: Rook v Maynard (1993) 126
ALR 150
UEA
S 59
S 60
Exceptions To hearsay
Common Law
Statutes
Res Gestae (likelyhood evidence could not have been made up)
admissibility
of evidence
by reason of
its
overwhelming
relevance
and
reliability
enables evidence to be received as truth of its
contents even though it may infringe one or
more of the exclusionary rules
Four main heads of the doctrine
R v O'Leary (1946) 73 CLR 566; Incidents or
events regarded as part of the transaction in
issue.
Statements made by a person as to his or her
contemporaneous physical sensations or
general state of health; Ramsay v Watson
(1961) 108 CLR 642; R v Perry (No. 2) (1981) 28
SASR 95, 96-98; UEA s72.
UEA s 72; Statements made by a
person as to his or her state of emotion or
belief.
Vocianso v Vociasno; Armstrong v State of
Western Australia; Spontaneous statements
made by participants in or observers of an event
in issue.
R v Keogh (No. 3) (2014) 121
SASR 410 [12-18] Stevens v CSR
Ltd [2015] SADC 57 Technilock
(Aust P/L) v Mondami [1999]
SASC 320
Admissions/Confessions
Declarations against interest:
Sussex Peerage (1844) 8 ER 1034
Declarations in the Course of Duty/Public or General
Rights/as to Pedigree (including statements as to close
family relationships): R v Benz (Mason CJ)
Dying Declarations . R v Hope [1909]/
Post‐Testamentary Declarations of Testators
Concerning the Contents of Their Wills
Statements of Testators in Testator's Family Maintenance
Proceedings
Statements in Public Documents.
Confessions against penal interest made by a suspect
Inherently Reliable Evidence
As per Mason CJ and
Deane J in Walton;
Hearsay might be
admitted as truth of its
contents if it was
uttered or expressed in
circumstances
suggesting its inherent
reliability.
This is not a firm or settled basis
for any exceptions as stated in R
v Bannon (1993) 185 CLR 1;
Myers v DPP [1965] AC 101; R v
Baker (2012) 289 ALR 614
(especially Heydon J).