• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Law of Evidence - R v Kearley

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Law of Evidence - Assessed Work (No.2) by Simon Wolman R v Kearley Essentially this piece concerns whether the House of Lords correctly decided the case of R v Kearley1. The majority decided allowing the appeal, that the evidence concerned in this case was either irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible (unless part of the res gestae) or was inadmissible as hearsay in the form of an implied assertion. The facts of Kearley will be discussed, followed by an analysis of the decision by their Lordships, finally considering the issues of relevance and implied assertions in relation to the decision in Kearley. The facts of Kearley are well known. The disputed evidence was that the police officers whilst on the raid answered a number of callers to the flats, both by telephone and by visitors. The police officers testified that the callers were seeking to buy drugs in place of the original callers who were unwilling or unable to attend court. The appellant objected to the evidence on the ground that it was hearsay, but this was overruled. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and certified a question to the House of Lords. Condensing the certified question, it was whether a person not called as a witness, for the purpose of not establishing the truth of any fact narrated by the words, but of inviting the jury to draw an inference from the fact that the words were spoken ? 2 On the issue of relevancy, Lord Ackner for the majority considered that each request was evidence of the state of mind of the person making the request, and that was an irrelevant issue in the trial. ...read more.

Middle

This point follows Spencer's comment regarding what we mean by 'prove'. He suggests that 'prove' is equivalent to 'suggesting it'21. It is submitted, that in essence this is what 'prove' means. Ultimately, it is the jury who are to decide what evidence they consider suggests guilt opposed to innocence. Finally it is submitted that opinion expressed by Lord Browne-Wilkinson, regarding human activity necessarily implying that the human being has reasons and beliefs on which his actions are based, has some merit. It would seem unlikely that a potential customer of drugs would act and go somewhere to obtain a substance without prior knowledge that he would be able to obtain it. It is clear, that the disputed evidence in Kearley was relevant, and was correctly admitted by the trial judge. It indicated potential customers or a market, which is probative evidence that the defendant was a drug dealer. It is submitted, that there could be no clearer evidence than this to establish that a person was in possession of a controlled substance with intent to supply. Kearley concerned implied assertions. According to Keane an implied assertion is : " An assertion where made orally, in writing or by conduct from which it is possible to infer a particular fact."22 It could be argued that Kearley contained an implied assertion conforming to this definition. The inference in this case being that the appellant was a drug dealer and was therefore guilty of possession with intent to supply. Previous authorities23 support the view that implied assertions fall foul of the hearsay rule and should be inadmissible. ...read more.

Conclusion

Intervention of this kind would not only help students of this subject but, judges and the legal profession as to where to draw the line. 1 [1992] 2 All ER 345 2 [1992] 2 All ER 345, 383 3 [1992] 2 All ER 345, 370 4 [1992] 2 All ER 345, 384 5 [1992] 2 All ER 345, 384 6 [1992] 2 All ER 345, 348 7 [1992] 2 All ER 345, 348 8 inter alia Davidson v Quike [1923] NZLR 552 and McGregor v Stokes [1952] VLR 347 9 [1837] 7 Ad & El 313 10 [1964] 2 All ER 881 11 [1985] 2 All ER 1095 12 [1992] 2 All ER 345, 348 13 [1971] 3 All ER 801 14 [1986] 86 Cr App R 105 15 DPP v Kilbourne [1973] AC 726 per Lord Simon at P756 16 [1993] 13 Legal Studies 54, 65 17 Law of Evidence (1999) Page 528 18 [1993] 56 MLR 138, 146 19 Per Lord Griffiths in Kearley at Page 348 20 [1993] CLJ 40, 41 21 ibid no. 19 22 The Modern Law of Evidence (4th Edition) (Butterworths) 23 Wright v Doe D Tatham (1837) and Teper v R (1952) 24 [1993] 13 Legal Studies 54 59 25 [1993] 56 MLR 138, 140 26 Law of Evidence (1999) 27 [1992] NLJ 1194, 1194 28 [1993] 56 MLR 138, 148 29 [1993] 56 MLR 138, 151-152 30 [1994] 110 LQR 431, 438 31 Report No. 245: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings and Related Topics (1997) 32 Pattenden, Rein - (modified version though), and Cross 33 [1993] CLJ 40, 42 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

An effective conclusion.

This essay is excellent. It considers each judgment - minority and majority views - in Kearley, and academic commentary in some depth.

It would achieve high marks at even undergraduate level.

5 Stars.

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 23/10/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the essential differences between Civil and Criminal Law particularly in relation to their ...

    4 star(s)

    In a Civil case it is always said that the Claimant (previously Plaintiff) sues the Defendant but never prosecutes. It is written as - Claimant v Defendant. In Criminal cases it is said that the Prosecutor or the Crown prosecutes the Defendant.

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Explain the role and effectiveness of the law commission

    3 star(s)

    The law commission was successful in reforming small areas of law. The first 20 reforms were enacted within an average of 2 years. Within 10 years of its existence it had a high success rate of 85%. Possibly the other 15% went on backlogs or they could be still waiting to be reformed.

  1. There are four different types of law, criminal, civil, common and statuate. In this ...

    in the individual being hurt themselves and not accomplishing the task that they set out to do which is to save other peoples lives. Conformity is a definite quality that is needed because you have to cooperate and work as part of the fire service team and not try to do things your own way.

  2. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    further direction to the jury would be needed as intention would be clear. * R v Scally (1995) Arsonist killed child in building. Convicted of murder Appealed - COA - Scally was an exceptional case and N direction should be used. Judge gave direction but said "virtual certainty" (Hyam direction)

  1. Study the concept of Reasonable man and reasonability in tort law.

    The Reasonable Man is reproduced and cited in many modern British and United States legal books as it illustrates a key axiom of the common law - that many jury decisions are centered around the concept of the 'reasonable man'.

  2. role of media in OJ Simpson Case

    People started questioning if the legal system was a 'fair' legal system or if the predominantly white courtroom would convict any black man. The trial of OJ Simpson became not so much a determination of his guilt of innocence of murder in the 1st degree, but whether or not a black man could find justice in a legal system.

  1. "Discuss the meaning and constitutional significance of the rule of law. Illustrate your answer ...

    Finally - Constitution is the result of the ordinary law of the land "There is no need for a bill of rights because the general principles of the constitution are the result of judicial decisions determining the rights of the private person."

  2. 'What defences does the law provide for journalists facing defamation cases?'

    offence (exception to this are reporting a court case, a police statement, or the report is covered by privilege). If the journalist has reported that a person is suspected of being guilty then they need to prove there are 'reasonable grounds' for suspicion.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work