• 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

    The Police and Criminal Evidence Acts 1984-provides an effective balance between the powers of ...

    3 star(s)

    The Maxwell Confait case was broadcast nationally, and this shattered the image of the police. They were no longer respected and this caused major riots etc. A change was to have to be made to repair the damage that

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Explain the role and effectiveness of the law commission

    3 star(s)

    The commission will then publish a consultation paper which will seek the opinions on the reform. This paper will describe the current law and shows the problems and also look for options on reformation. Following this, the commission will draw up positive proposals for reformation which will be presented in

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

    The reason for this is that working, as part of a team is more effective than on your own and a lot more can be accomplished. In the second part of this letter I am going to explain to you in which court your trial will take place and then

  2. Is the imposition of strict liability ever justifiable in criminal law?

    and could not possibly avoid committing an offence, should be punished under criminal law. It could be suggested that this is contrary to the principle that criminal law punishes fault. Secondly, it is morally doubtful that strict liability should be evoked because mens rea has been found as too difficult to prove.

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

    Judge gave direction but said "virtual certainty" (Hyam direction) Conviction was quashed * R v Woolin (1996) W threw a baby at wall. Baby died. Police arrived and W said he didn't know what happened or how baby had died. Later on admitted to it. Oblique intention, however judge used the words 'substantial risk' instead of 'virtual certainty' Appeal

  2. civil law, criminal law and habeas corpus

    habeas corpus (Latin, 'you must have the body'), an ancient common-law right which, in the form developed in England since the 15th century, requires an official to provide legal justification before the courts for the imprisonment of a detained person.

  1. Offences against the person act 1861; criticisms and reforms.

    police approach which was to leave domestic violence alone and hope that the partners would sort their problems alone. Although there have already been changes made in recent years, there is still very few domestic violence cases reported.

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

    the journalist. A plea of justification can also be difficult when reporting on investigations. It is obviously defamatory to report that somebody is guilty of an offence, or to report an accusation made by a third party. The only way a journalist can defend themselves is to prove the person committed the

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