Hearsay and the Exceptions in Civil and Criminal Cases
The general rule at common law is that hearsay evidence is inadmissible unless it falls within a common law or statutory exception. The rationale behind this exclusionary rule is that out of court statements made by others cannot be tested in court by cross-examination to see if they are true or not
Hearsay evidence is renowned as one of the most difficult areas as of law to pigeon hole and define. It has been widely interpreted and reinterpreted by the courts. A useful starting point is the definition found in the Civil Evidence Act 1995 section 1, which, bearing in mind that it only applies to hearsay in civil cases, is one of the nearest to a clear definition of hearsay. The definition itself is based on common law cases, which form the basis of how hearsay evidence is treated in criminal cases; Under section 1(2) of the Act - Hearsay evidence can be thought of as "any statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated." Examples of hearsay statements in documents can be found in witness statements read out by solicitors in court; public analyst certificates, and records from businesses, such as accounts.
For the purposes of the hearsay rules, the definition of a statement applies equally to those made orally, to those made by a gesture and those made in documents.
Statements that have been held to be hearsay include documents from a factory, assembly line (Myers v DPP); somebody nodding in agreement to a question; and phone calls to a drug dealer's house asking for the usual supply of drugs. The cases have shown that statements could be statements that on the face of it are not repeated to prove the facts stated, but on reflection imply that the facts suggested are true. However, even the cases dealing with these so-called "implied assertions" are unclear and often conflicting.
There are several clear common law exceptions to the hearsay rule. As stated the hearsay
Hearsay evidence is renowned as one of the most difficult areas as of law to pigeon hole and define. It has been widely interpreted and reinterpreted by the courts. A useful starting point is the definition found in the Civil Evidence Act 1995 section 1, which, bearing in mind that it only applies to hearsay in civil cases, is one of the nearest to a clear definition of hearsay. The definition itself is based on common law cases, which form the basis of how hearsay evidence is treated in criminal cases; Under section 1(2) of the Act - Hearsay evidence can be thought of as "any statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated." Examples of hearsay statements in documents can be found in witness statements read out by solicitors in court; public analyst certificates, and records from businesses, such as accounts.
For the purposes of the hearsay rules, the definition of a statement applies equally to those made orally, to those made by a gesture and those made in documents.
Statements that have been held to be hearsay include documents from a factory, assembly line (Myers v DPP); somebody nodding in agreement to a question; and phone calls to a drug dealer's house asking for the usual supply of drugs. The cases have shown that statements could be statements that on the face of it are not repeated to prove the facts stated, but on reflection imply that the facts suggested are true. However, even the cases dealing with these so-called "implied assertions" are unclear and often conflicting.
There are several clear common law exceptions to the hearsay rule. As stated the hearsay