Critically discuss the hearsay rule and the exceptions to it

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 . 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 remains hearsay. 2. The general rule is that such a statement is inadmissible as evidence of the truth of the facts stated. 1 3. The rule applies: o to both examination in chief and cross-examination; o whether the statement was made by

  • Word count: 8873
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Hearsay in Myers v. DPP [1965]

Hearsay In Myers v. DPP [1965] the accused faced several charges of receiving stolen cars. The prosecution case was that wrecked cars and their log books had been bought at a very low price and then cars of the same type had been stolen, passed off and sold as the legitimately bought cars. The prosecution were allowed to establish that the cars were stolen by calling employees of the car manufacturers, and these witnesses produced microfilm records (photographs of the written record compiled by anonymous workmen on the production line) purporting to show, the cylinder block numbers which had been indelibly stamped on the engine and contemporaneously recorded during the manufacturing process. The majority of the House of Lords held that the evidence had been wrongly admitted on the ground that the hearsay rule was absolute unless an exception applied. The list of common-law exceptions was closed, and the mere fact hearsay evidence was highly reliable was not of itself any reason to admit it in the absence of an established exception. No matter how cogent particular evidence may seem to be, unless it comes within a class, which is admissible, it is excluded. The technical nature of the hearsay rule has created difficulties for the courts. If highly reliable and probative evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule it is inadmissible unless a common-law or

  • Word count: 2765
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Hearsay in law.

Hearsay In Myers v. DPP [1965] the accused faced several charges of receiving stolen cars. The prosecution case was that wrecked cars and their log books had been bought at a very low price and then cars of the same type had been stolen, passed off and sold as the legitimately bought cars. The prosecution were allowed to establish that the cars were stolen by calling employees of the car manufacturers, and these witnesses produced microfilm records (photographs of the written record compiled by anonymous workmen on the production line) purporting to show, the cylinder block numbers which had been indelibly stamped on the engine and contemporaneously recorded during the manufacturing process. The majority of the House of Lords held that the evidence had been wrongly admitted on the ground that the hearsay rule was absolute unless an exception applied. The list of common-law exceptions was closed, and the mere fact hearsay evidence was highly reliable was not of itself any reason to admit it in the absence of an established exception. No matter how cogent particular evidence may seem to be, unless it comes within a class, which is admissible, it is excluded. The technical nature of the hearsay rule has created difficulties for the courts. If highly reliable and probative evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule it is inadmissible unless a common-law or

  • Word count: 2767
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Evidence: Burden of proof

Where a defendant is obliged to prove an element of his defence; this is most commonly referred to as a 'legal burden'. In other cases, the lesser burden placed on the defendant requires the defendant to present some evidence of the defence. This is most commonly referred to as the defendant's 'evidential burden'. All three subsections of the Act place an evidential burden on the accused. The word "show" implies that it is for the defence to adduce some evidence. Where the legal burden lies requires some more consideration. The cardinal principle of all criminal trials is that the prosecution bears the persuasive burden. This rule was firmly established by the House of Lords in Woolmington v DPP. The Golden Thread principle, as asserted by Viscount Sankey in this case, is an elementary feature of English criminal law which encapsulates the presumption of law that the defendant remains innocent until he is proved guilty: "Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt subject to ... the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception...no matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained." As mentioned

  • Word count: 2329
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

How reliable is Eyewitness Testimony?

How reliable is Eyewitness Testimony? Eyewitness testimony is often important or even crucial evidence in a trial. Therefore the reliability of it is an important factor. The testimony given by an eyewitness provides crucial evidence which can determine whether or not a defendant is convicted. Eyewitness testimony is highly regarded by the courts, however there is a great deal of empirical evidence to suggest that eyewitness testimony is not that reliable and the faith placed in by the courts is unjustified. However this research was not taken seriously until the late 1990s by criminal justice personnel. 'More than 100 people who were convicted prior to the development of forensic DNA have now been exonerated by DNA tests and more than 75% of these people were victims of mistaken eyewitness identification.' (Olson and Wells 2003, p. 278). There a numerous ways in which the reliability of eyewitness testimony can be reduced. One of the factors that can affect eyewitness testimony is the use of language for example the use of leading questions (questions that imply the correct answer). Loftus and Palmer (1974) showed participants a film of a car accident, and later asked them questions relating to it. Each participant was asked to estimate how fast the car was travelling when it 'hit' the other car. By replacing the word 'hit' with the word 'smashed' Loftus and Palmer were

  • Word count: 1982
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

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

The standard definition of hearsay as found in the widely used Black's Law Dictionary1: "A statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay evidence is testimony in court of a statement made out of court, the statement being offered as an assertion to show the truth of the matter therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out of court asserter. Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say" However as the definition above also states, there are numerous exceptions to the hearsay rule. An example is when the original declarant is not available and the statement contains indicia of reliability. What is important is that the use of an out of court statement as an assertion of the truth of the content of that out of court statement, as the definition above reads, " to show the truth of matters asserted therein, and thus resting for its value upon the credibility of the out of court asserter". The concern of the hearsay rule is that matters of fact asserted by an individual rely for their truth in part upon the credibility of the individual asserting them. The hearsay rule generally disallows the use of out of court statements as evidence of the truth of the

  • Word count: 1305
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Burden of Proof

Harold set up a business without obtaining a licence as required by statute. He insured his business premises under a policy covering loss or damage except where caused by arson. Shortly afterwards, the premises are burnt to the ground. Harold is now suing the insurers. They deny liability to pay on the ground that they are not satisfied the fire started accidentally. Further, Harold is being prosecuted by the local authority for carrying on his business without a licence. Explain the different burdens of proof that can be recognised and consider the application of these rules in relation to both the civil action brought by Harold and the prosecution by the local authority. The aim of this assignment is to explain the different burdens of proof that can be recognised and consider the application of these rules in relation to both the civil action brought by Harold and the prosecution by the local authority. When an issue of fact has to be proved in a court of law, it first necessary to consider the burdens borne by the parties and so, in order to do this one needs to establish what are the different burdens of proof that can be recognised1. The general meaning of the phrase 'burden of proof'2 is "...the obligation to prove"3. However the burden of proof can then be divided into two different principles known as the legal burden and the evidential burden. The legal burden

  • Word count: 3320
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

LAW OF EVIDENCE

Law of Evidence - Assignment 2 After over 100 years the provisions of the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 relating to the cross examination of the accused are set to be fundamentally reconsidered. Three key reports have recommended such action. Lord Justice Auld in the Criminal Court Review, the Government in "The Way Ahead" policy paper and the Law Commission in their report Evidence of Bad Character in Criminal Proceedings have all outlined solutions to solve the problems that allow the current rules for cross examination of defendants under the Criminal Evidence Act 1898 to operate unfairly and distort the process. Although most agree that reform is necessary how this should be done has proved a more difficult question to answer. Broadly speaking the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, sections 1(2) and 1(3) state that an accused cannot be cross-examined on his or her previous misconduct. The main reasons advanced for the rule are that such evidence is generally irrelevant and that, in any event, its prejudicial effect is likely to outweigh its probative effect. However, there are three exceptions to the general rule: first, where it would be admissible to prove he is guilty of the offence charged, in the main similar fact evidence, but also including evidence under various statutes; second, where he has sought to establish that he is of good character or has attacked the character of

  • Word count: 2429
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Burden of Proof. The courts constantly battle with the simple question of: in what circumstances is a reverse onus in a criminal case compatible with the presumption of innocence under Art.6(2) of the Convention?

It's ridiculous to say that just because parliament does not expressly state the reversal of burden that it would not be compliant with the presumption of innocence. I think that there is nothing wrong with reversal of burdens despite, whether it has been expressly stated by parliament, provided of course it is justified with fair, just and reasonable reasons. Another reason to support my opinion is simply based on the fact that that it is established that The European Court Of Human Rights held that the convention rights are not absolute rules, it is merely a guideline. So in other words reversal of burdens isn't automatically seen as an encroachment of the presumption of innocence just because it is not expressly stated by parliament. The presumption of innocence in Art.6(2) of the European Court of Human Rights states that everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law. The presumption is the foundation of the fundamental rule of criminal law that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilt of the offence charged beyond reasonable doubt.1 The problem which then arises is that prima facie a reverse onus is inconsistent with the presumption. Unless the presumption can be expressly reversed it would seem to require the prosecution to prove any and all matters comprising the guilt of the defendant.

  • Word count: 3998
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

When psychologists act as expert witnesses a number of issues are raised surrounding the admissibility of their evidence - Discuss these issues with reference to eyewitness testimony and domestic violence.

When psychologists act as expert witnesses a number of issues are raised surrounding the admissibility of their evidence. Discuss these issues with reference to eyewitness testimony and domestic violence, then make suggestions as to how these issues might be resolved. In order to prosecute alleged offences, evidence such as testimony from eyewitness, fingerprint, hair, DNA, etc. which should provided in court accurately. These evidences are only allowed in legal proceedings when they are considered to be relevant (i.e. determined on the basis of the logically which is probative value of the evidence) and admissible which is legally receivable irrespective of whether or not it is logically probative. Therefore, evidence may be highly relevant but be inadmissible for legal reasons. In case where eyewitness testimony is the sole or main evidence against an accused, then the reliability of the testimony is very important. In order to prevent a possible miscarriage of justice, the defence may call an expert witness in an attempt to warn jurors of the dangers of relying too heavily on eyewitness testimony. It is because eyewitnesses can only testify about what they have observed or what they know as fact. On the other hand, the expert witnesses may express opinion for what they possess special knowledge about a topic, or knowledge that the juror does not have. In past, the

  • Word count: 3274
  • Level: University Degree
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay