Hearsay Flashcards
What?
Prohibits out of court statements—adduced to prove content of what has been said
Rationale
Truth of words cannot be tested by cross examination (only admissible if this is the case)
Making cross examination difficult
Admissible if: witness testifying about what they heard from someone else
Subramanian v dpp
—accused—-charged with—unlawful possession of ammunition
—-claimed —terrorist captured him—acted under duress
—tried to adduce evidence of his capture—- and what terrorist said to him
—-trial judge—- inadmissible
However— if terrorist called to give evidence —would’ve been admissible
Summary of hearsay
Statement of hearsay inadmissible her. The object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement
Importance of cross examining Evidence
In Re Haughey— held —right to fair procedures guarantee by article 40.3 of constitution
Included right that defendant be permitted to cross examine his accuser
Disadvantage of the rule
Lead to highly probative evidence being inadmissible
Eg evidence of dead or unidentified person
R v Gray
Deathbed confession —by 3rd party—saying he committed murder and not the accused
Held—inadmissible—hearsay rule
Applicable to oral statements—
Teper v R
—accused—convicted—setting fire to shop—-intent to defraud his insurance company
—at trial— policeman —gave evidence —heard woman saying “your place is burning and you are goin away from the fire”
—noticed black car— coming from direction of fire —with man in it resembling accused
—both sides accepted—police man nearby and incident happened 26mins after fire started
—privy counsel—allowed appeal
Held—statement by woman—INADMISSIBLE—hearsay
Ireland Cullen v Clarke
—applicant injured—-while employed as builders labourer
—-sought to obtain compensation—-under workmen’s compensation litigation
—he had to show he was incapacitated due to injury
—quoted statement from prospective employers —they wouldn’t give him work
—-supreme court —-held —he was relying on truth of such statement
HEARSAY!
