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

It is time the rule against hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings was abolished and brought into line with the rule in civil proceedings. Discuss.

Extracts from this document...


2,000 words It is time the rule against hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings was abolished and brought into line with the rule in civil proceedings. Discuss. The hearsay ruling, one of the biggest exclusionary rules in the law relating to evidence, has often been criticised. There are those who support it and those who see little relevance in the rule, and would like to see it abolished. In civil cases, the rule now has little application, and could be seen as an indicator of the growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the rule1. That said recent criminal cases have shown that the hearsay rule is still playing a part in cases and proving as problematic as ever2. Its impossible to give a thorough look at hearsay in such little space3, but a brief over view of what exactly the hearsay rule is, will be followed by a look at some of the problems it causes, and why abolishment may seem appropriate. Cross on Evidence4 defines Hearsay as: "An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact or opinion asserted". This is to prevent, a witness being called to testify that a person told them they saw a crime happen, though they themselves did not see it. ...read more.


In the second case, O and V had both been identified in a line out by two separate witnesses. At trial one witness could not remember identifying anyone, and the second witness did not believe the person she picked was in court. However the police officer responsible was allowed to give evidence confirming the identification's. In both cases one witness is attempting to prove the truth of another's statement. They are, on this point of law, indistinguishable. In one, the hearsay rule applied, in the other, the court allowed a way around it. An extension to the hearsay rule arose in the case of Kearley (1992)14, where the rule was held to apply to "implied assertions". An implied assertion, is a piece of evidence that is circumstantial, yet the law treats it as though it were a direct statement upon whose truth the party adducing it, intends to rely on. In the case, K was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing. While police searched his flat 10 people were said to have telephoned and 7 called in person. Some asked for K and offered to buy drugs. The prosecution did not call any of the "prospective buyers" to testify15, but called the police officers to confirm the calls took place. The defence successfully convinced the majority (3-2) of the House of Lords that this was however nothing more than hearsay and irrelevant. ...read more.


8 Turner [1975] 61 Cr App R 67 9 [1965] AC 1001 10 Crim LR 316 11 1 QB 857 12 52 Cr App R 80 13 QB 678 14 2 AC 228 15 It is unknown why, perhaps because they did not wish to cross their dealer, or they could not be traced. However, had one of these callers testified, it would then no longer be hearsay. 16 "it is difficult to think of much more convincing evidence of (k's) activity as a drug dealer than customers constantly ringing his flat to buy drugs and a stream of customers beating a path to his door for the same purpose." Lord Griffiths, Kearley (1992). 17 The fact that K had only been found with a small amount of drugs (an amount that could be manufactured easily) may mean that the hearsay rule being applied actually protects innocents from police corruption. 18 Lord Oliver felt that to ignore the hearsay ruling for an implied assertion would have meant the court "embarking upon a process of judicial legislation". Perhaps this highlights the need for the courts to be given improved and greater detailed legislation on the matter from parliament. 19 Teper v R [1952] AC 480 20 AC 41. "The danger against which this fundamental rule provides a safeguard is that untested hearsay evidence will be treated as having a probative force which it does not deserve" - Lord Bridge. 21 [1996] Cr App R 302 1 ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

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

Found what you're looking for?

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

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 University Degree Law of Evidence essays

  1. A critical review on Foakes v Beer: Reform of common law at the expense ...

    Whilst this restatement navigates a route around the difficult Foakes doctrine, it risks deriving the equitable doctrine of its distinguishing characteristics, namely, that equity provides relief where justice requires it to do so. This requires there to be an independent assessment of whether it would be inequitable for the creditor to resile from his promise.

  2. The common law rule against hearsay evidence had a deserved reputation for being technical ...

    under the common law, subjected the Act to further specified exceptions and a limited inclusionary discretion concentrating upon relevance and weight rather than admissibility.[7] The basis of statutory admission of hearsay evidence under CJA is provided by s. 114(1) and is limited to four categories of exception comprising: (a)

  1. The standard definition of hearsay as found in the widely used Black's Law Dictionary.

    The case is Miller V. Wertheim and Rothman5; in this case, a one Ms Miller alleged that Mr. Wertheim the out going president of the New South Jewish Society, made a speech which vilified and intimidated Jewish people. The evidence of the speech was objected by the respondents on the basis that it was hearsay.

  2. Burden of Proof. The courts constantly battle with the simple question of: in what ...

    v DPP Ex p. Kebeline,3 Lambert,4 Johnstone,5 Sheldrake v DPP 6 The last of these cases comprised two conjoined appeals, the other being Attorney-General's Reference (No.4 of 2002);. There have also been several more cases on reverse onuses in the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Court.16 This has now led to an unusual

  1. The impact of HRA 1998 on burden of proof and confession

    Applying Lambert22, the Court of Appeal in R v Carass23 considered that the proper approach to the problem of reverse-onus provisions is that "it must be justified and in particular it must be demonstrated why a legal or persuasive burden rather than an evidential burden is necessary.

  2. Critically discuss the hearsay rule and the exceptions to it

    However, the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) simplifies and relaxes certain aspects of the rule and the exceptions to it. 2. The new provisions of the CJA 2003 came into force on 4 April 2005. They set out when hearsay evidence will be admissible and when it can be excluded.

  1. The impact of HRA on burden of proof and bad character

    It was held that the imposition of legal burden of proof on the accused, as set out in s.28(2) Misuse of Drugs Act 1971,14 could not be justified as proportionate given the gravity of the consequences which would follow a conviction with a sentence of life imprisonment in the most

  2. Impact of Art 6(2) of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ...

    The principle of proportionality must be observed. The test of proportionality requires courts to consider whether there was a pressing necessity to impose a legal rather than an evidential burden on the accused.[32] Ian Dennis? six cardinal rules Ian Dennis has summarized the factors to be taken into account when court applying the test on proportionality.

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