Critically discuss the hearsay rule and the exceptions to it

This essay hasn't yet been marked by one of our teachers

You can view all our essays on Law of Evidence that have been Marked by Teachers

The first 200 words of this essay...

The origins of the hearsay rule can be traced to the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603, who was found guilty of high treason on the basis of testimony that someone had overheard someone else say they heard Raleigh would slit the King's throat. The disgrace of this trial and its wrongful conviction led English jurists to develop a hard and fast rule against hearsay evidence, with hearsay defined as the words of a stranger to parties; that is, the words of someone to which neither the State nor the defendant are privy. Not being privy to the person who spoke the original words means that an 'out-of-court' statement is being repeated in court by a person who overheard another person outside of court make a statement, and indeed, this is the common law definition of hearsay.1 'Critically discuss the hearsay rule and the exceptions to it, in light of the requirements of justice.'

Definition

1. Section 114 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) defines hearsay evidence as any 'statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings.' Reliance on a statement made otherwise than while giving evidence to prove the truth of a fact asserted