Introduction to Hearsay Flashcards
What is the general rule regarding hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings?
A. It is always admissible if it is relevant
B. It is admissible if the court agrees
C. It is inadmissible unless it falls under a recognised exception
D. It is admissible if it helps the defence
C. It is inadmissible unless it falls under a recognised exception.
Explanation:
Under s.114(1) CJA 2003, hearsay is only admissible if it falls within a statutory exception, a rule of law, by agreement of parties, or if it is in the interests of justice.
Under which section of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is the main test for admissibility of hearsay found?
A. Section 114
B. Section 112
C. Section 115
D. Section 116
A. Section 114.
Explanation:
Section 114 sets out when hearsay is admissible. It provides four specific gateways for allowing hearsay evidence into court proceedings.
A witness writes in their private diary that they once saw the defendant commit theft. The diary is found years later. Can this diary entry be admitted as hearsay evidence?
A. Yes, it was intended to be believed
B. Yes, because it is relevant to the facts
C. No, because it was intended for personal use
D. No, because diary entries are always inadmissible
C. No, because it was intended for personal use.
Explanation:
Statements are only hearsay if intended to cause someone else to believe or act on them. A private diary entry is not intended to influence another and therefore is not hearsay.
During trial, the prosecution seeks to admit CCTV footage showing the defendant at the scene. Is this hearsay?
A. Yes, because it records events
B. No, because CCTV without human input is not hearsay
C. Yes, because it involves out-of-court evidence
D. No, but only if authenticated by a witness
B. No, because CCTV without human input is not hearsay.
Explanation:
Section 115(2) defines a statement as needing to be made by a person. Machine-only generated evidence like CCTV without human input is not hearsay.
Text messages received by a defendant say: “Can you sell me drugs?” The prosecution seeks to use the texts to show the defendant is a drug dealer. Are the texts hearsay?
A. Yes, because they imply he deals drugs
B. No, because they were not intended to prove he is a dealer
C. Yes, because they are made outside court
D. No, because all text messages are admissible automatically
D. No, because they were not intended to prove he is a dealer.
Explanation:
Following R v Twist, although the texts imply drug dealing, they were not intended by the senders to cause belief that D is a dealer. Therefore, they are not hearsay.
A witness overhears someone threatening the defendant and reports it in court. The prosecution uses the threat to show the defendant was under fear. Is this hearsay?
A. No, because it shows the effect on the defendant
B. Yes, because it is an out-of-court statement
C. No, because all threats are original evidence
D. Yes, unless the defendant admits the threat
A. No, because it shows the effect on the defendant.
Explanation:
Evidence is not hearsay when introduced to show its effect on the hearer rather than to prove the truth of the words spoken.
Which of the following is an example of original evidence and NOT hearsay?
A. An eyewitness recounts what another person claimed happened
B. CCTV footage showing the defendant’s actions
C. A letter accusing the defendant of theft
D. A transcript of a witness interview
B. CCTV footage showing the defendant’s actions.
Explanation:
CCTV footage generated without human input is not hearsay because it is not a statement made by a person intending another to believe something.
