Unit 17&18 Hearsay Flashcards
S114(1) In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if—
a. any provision of this Chapter or any other statutory provision makes it admissible,
b. any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible,
c. all parties to the proceedings agree to it being admissible, or
d. the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible.
What should the court take into consideration in considering the interests of justice under s114(1)(d)
a. how much probative value the statement has (assuming it to be true) in relation to a matter in issue in the proceedings, or how valuable it is for the understanding of other evidence in the case;
b. what other evidence has been, or can be, given on the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a);
c. how important the matter or evidence mentioned in paragraph (a) is in the context of the case as a whole;
d. the circumstances in which the statement was made;
e. how reliable the maker of the statement appears to be;
f. how reliable the evidence of the making of the statement appears to be;
g. whether oral evidence of the matter stated can be given and, if not, why it cannot;
h. the amount of difficulty involved in challenging the statement;
i. the extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it.
Can Hearsay evidence still be excluded in the usual ways?
Yes, if applicable. (s114(3) Nothing in this Chapter affects the exclusion of evidence of a statement on grounds other than the fact that it is a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings.)
What is a Statement for the purposes of s115 Hearsay?
A statement is any representation of fact or opinion made by a person by whatever means; and it includes a representation made in a sketch, photofit or other pictorial form.
What is a Matter Stated for the purposes of s115 Hearsay?
A matter stated is one to which this Chapter applies if (and only if) the purpose, or one of the purposes, of the person making the statement appears to the court to have been—
a. to cause another person to believe the matter, or
b. to cause another person to act or a machine to operate on the basis that the matter is as stated.
If a witness is not available to make oral evidence in the proceedings, what 3 conditions must be met for the court to consider it admissible?
S116(1)
116(1)In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—
a. oral evidence given in the proceedings by the person who made the statement would be admissible as evidence of that matter,
b. the person who made the statement (the relevant person) is identified to the court’s satisfaction, and
c. any of the five conditions mentioned in subsection (2) is satisfied.
What are the “conditions” referred to in s116(1) that, if present, a court can then allow the evidence of an absent witness? (s116(2))
116(2) The conditions are—
a. that the relevant person is dead;
b. that the relevant person is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition;
c. that the relevant person is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his attendance;
d. that the relevant person cannot be found although such steps as it is reasonably practicable to take to find him have been taken;
e. that through fear the relevant person does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement, and the court gives leave for the statement to be given in evidence.
What does fear mean for the purposes of 116(2)(e)
116(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(e) “fear” is to be widely construed and (for example) includes fear of the death or injury of another person or of financial loss.
116 (4) Leave may be given under subsection (2)(e) only if the court considers that the statement ought to be admitted in the interests of justice, having regard—
a. to the statement’s contents,
b. to any risk that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to any party to the proceedings (and in particular to how difficult it will be to challenge the statement if the relevant person does not give oral evidence),
c. in appropriate cases, to the fact that a direction under section 19 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23) (special measures for the giving of evidence by fearful witnesses etc) could be made in relation to the relevant person, and
d. to any other relevant circumstances.
What will the court have regard to in deciding whether “fear” under s116(2)(e) is appropriate for an absent witness’s evidence to be admissible?
116 (4) Leave may be given under subsection (2)(e) only if the court considers that the statement ought to be admitted in the interests of justice, having regard—
a. to the statement’s contents,
b. to any risk that its admission or exclusion will result in unfairness to any party to the proceedings (and in particular to how difficult it will be to challenge the statement if the relevant person does not give oral evidence),
c. in appropriate cases, to the fact that a direction under section 19 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (c. 23) (special measures for the giving of evidence by fearful witnesses etc) could be made in relation to the relevant person, and
d. to any other relevant circumstances.
What are the limitations on s116(2) gateways for hearsay evidence with an absent witness?
116(5)A condition set out in any paragraph of subsection (2) which is in fact satisfied is to be treated as not satisfied if it is shown that the circumstances described in that paragraph are caused—
a. by the person in support of whose case it is sought to give the statement in evidence, or
b. by a person acting on his behalf,
in order to prevent the relevant person giving oral evidence in the proceedings (whether at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement).
When is a document admissible as Hearsay evidence?
s117(1)&(2)
S117(1) In criminal proceedings a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—
a. oral evidence given in the proceedings would be admissible as evidence of that matter,
b. the requirements of subsection (2) are satisfied, and
c. the requirements of subsection (5) are satisfied, in a case where subsection (4) requires them to be.
117(2) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied if—
a. the document or the part containing the statement was created or received by a person in the course of a trade, business, profession or other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office,
b. the person who supplied the information contained in the statement (the relevant person) had or may reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with, and
c. each person (if any) through whom the information was supplied from the relevant person to the person mentioned in paragraph (a) received the information in the course of a trade, business, profession or other occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office.
What are the additional requirements for a document to pass as hearsay evidence if s117(4) applies and therefore s117(5)?
The additional requirements of subsection (5) must be satisfied if the statement—
a. was prepared for the purposes of pending or contemplated criminal proceedings, or for a criminal investigation, but
b. was not obtained pursuant to—
I. a request under section 7 of the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003,
II. an order under paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 to the Criminal Justice Act 1988,
III. an order under Part 2 of the Criminal Justice (European Investigation Order) Regulations 2017, or
IV. an overseas production order under the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019,
(all of which relate to overseas evidence)
117(5) The requirements of this subsection are satisfied if—
a. any of the five conditions mentioned in section 116(2) is satisfied (absence of relevant person etc), or
b. the relevant person cannot reasonably be expected to have any recollection of the matters dealt with in the statement (having regard to the length of time since he supplied the information and all other circumstances).
Under s117(2) can the person who received the document in the course of business and the “relevant person” reasonably supposed to have personal knowledge of the matters dealt with in the statement, be the same person?
Yes, Under s117(3). The persons mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (2) may be the same person.
Can the court disallow documentary hearsay evidence even if it satisfies the criteria? If so, on what grounds?
S117(6) A statement is not admissible under this section if the court makes a direction to that effect under subsection (7).
S117(7) The court may make a direction under this subsection if satisfied that the statement’s reliability as evidence for the purpose for which it is tendered is doubtful in view of—
a. its contents,
b. the source of the information contained in it,
c. the way in which or the circumstances in which the information was supplied or received, or
d. the way in which or the circumstances in which the document concerned was created or received.
Under s118 what common law categories of admissibility are protected?
- Public information
- Reputation as to character
- Reputation or family tradition
- Res gestae
- Confessions
- Admissions by agents
- Common enterprise
- Expert evidence
What does it mean under s118 that Public information is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
118(1) Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings—
a. published works dealing with matters of a public nature (such as histories, scientific works, dictionaries and maps) are admissible as evidence of facts of a public nature stated in them,
b. public documents (such as public registers, and returns made under public authority with respect to matters of public interest) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them,
c. records (such as the records of certain courts, treaties, Crown grants, pardons and commissions) are admissible as evidence of facts stated in them, or
d. evidence relating to a person’s age or date or place of birth may be given by a person without personal knowledge of the matter.
What does it mean under s118 that Reputation as to character is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
118(2) Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings evidence of a person’s reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving his good or bad character.
Note: The rule is preserved only so far as it allows the court to treat such evidence as proving the matter concerned.
What does it mean under s118 that Reputation or family tradition is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
118(3) Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings evidence of reputation or family tradition is admissible for the purpose of proving or disproving—
a) pedigree or the existence of a marriage,
b) the existence of any public or general right, or
c) the identity of any person or thing.
Note: The rule is preserved only so far as it allows the court to treat such evidence as proving or disproving the matter concerned.
What does it mean under s118 that Res Gestae is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
S118(4) Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if—
a. the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,
b. the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
c. the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion).
What does it mean under s118 that “confessions” is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
118(5) Any rule of law relating to the admissibility of confessions or mixed statements in criminal proceedings.
What does it mean under s118 that Admissions by agents is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
S118(6) Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings—
a. an admission made by an agent of a defendant is admissible against the defendant as evidence of any matter stated, or
b. a statement made by a person to whom a defendant refers a person for information is admissible against the defendant as evidence of any matter stated.
What does it mean under s118 that “Common Enterprise” is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
S118(7) Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings a statement made by a party to a common enterprise is admissible against another party to the enterprise as evidence of any matter stated.
What does it mean under s118 that Expert Evidence is preserved in admissibility of hearsay?
S118(8) Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings an expert witness may draw on the body of expertise relevant to his field.
What is the impact of previous inconsistent statements on hearsay under s119?
119(1)If in criminal proceedings a person gives oral evidence and—
a. he admits making a previous inconsistent statement, or
b. a previous inconsistent statement made by him is proved by virtue of section 3, 4 or 5 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1865 (c. 18),
the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by him would be admissible.
119(2) If in criminal proceedings evidence of an inconsistent statement by any person is given under section 124(2)(c), the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated in it of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible.