Karteikarten
Hearsay
Karten in diesem Stapel (19)
- 11. What is hearsay?Connorton: 'a statement made by a person, other than one which is made by a witness while giving oral evidence in proceedings, is inadmissible as evidence of any fact stated.’
-Court also held that hearsay rule applies where the declarant is produced as a witness.
- Rule applies where party is adducing a statement for the truth of its contents. - 22. Rationales for hearsay?- Lacks safeguards of direct testimony e.g. cross examination.
- Encourages best efforts in evidence gathering.
- Risk that hearsay may be fabricated and complicate proceedings.
- Discussed in Teper, Cullen v Clarke etc. - 33. Hearsay Application to oral statements:- Sparks, Privy Council – “wiser and better that hearsay should be excluded save in exceptional circumstances.”
- Teper – “your place is burning down and your going away from the fire” – oral statement adduced for truth of contents, probably decisive in judgment – hearsay.
- But:
o Ratten: telephone operateor testified woman rang, hysterical, said “get me the police”, gave address and hung up.
- Admissible to prove phone call was made, to show Mrs Ratten’s state of mind, and to rebut defence of accidental death.
Harty: 999 call relaying fact that husband had driven car into wall of his wife and kids home.
- Admissible as original evidence – contemporaneous report of an allegation, and admissible to prove reasons why Gardai went to the scene. - 44. Hearsay Application to Written Statements:- Myers v DPP – car manufacturer’s records to unique block number of stolen cars inadmissible – majority was worried about encroaching on legislature. Lord Pearce minority judgment proposed business record exception.
- Patel v Comptroller of Customs [1966]
o Question over place of origin of seeds – labels, indicating Morocco, were inadmissible hearsay – not produced in court or authenticated.
DPP v C [2021]
o Medical certificates that go to nature of injuries admissible, without having to have doctor in court – s 25 non fatal offence against the person act.
DPP v Bates [2021
o Electronic/Internet statements are written statements. - 55. Hearsay application to conduct?Chandrasekera v R [1937] AC 220
- Fatally wounded and asked the identity of their assailant. Nodded his head to say yes it was him.
- Court: evidence as to signs made in answer to questions put to the deceased was admissible, but that statements of witnesses as to what interpretation they put upon the signs were not admissible.
People (DPP) v Bishop (CCA 27 Jan 2005)
o Gardai wanted to search a car as part of the investigation.
o The handing over of the keys to the car was deemed to be consent to the search. - 66. 3 types of evidence?Original evidence: Evidence relevant to prove something else.
Hearsay: Evidence used as proof of what was said by declarant.
Real evidence: Thing, not a statement – automated purpose.
- DPP v C [2021] IESC 74
o Hearsay statement offered to prove something other than truth of what was said is original evidence, admissible for alternative probative purpose.
- Connorton
o 999 call could be hearsay, or could be original evidence if voice recording used to demonstrate nature of voice or presence of background noises. - 77. Other Probative Purposes for Hearsay Evidence- To undermine credibility – previous inconsistent statements
- To prove statements were made.
- To establish persons state of mind
- To explain a person’s actions. - 8Case law on other probative purposes?- Cullen v Clarke – statements made by employers admissible to prove the difficulties claimant was having with getting work.
Subramanian – story of bandits who forced him to carry ammunition and saying they were communists – admissible to prove that statement was made and effect on his mental state.
Morgan – witness testified about incriminating conversation between co-accuseds after assault, deemed admissible to prove co-accused had made a statement and conduct of accused – didn’t react, didn’t deny anything. - 9What is real evidence?Statue of Liberty – a recording produced mechanically without human intervention is not hearsay and is admissible as real evidence – e.g. photos, clocks, barometers.
Murphy – telephone records are real evidence.
Meehan – printout of accused’s telephone traffic is real evidence.
Kirwan and A McD – CCTV is real evidence. - 10DPP v A McD?Prosecution tendered two key pieces of evidence – CCTV footage taken from within the complex, and confession evidence.
SC: CCTV footage is real evidence. No need for an expert to come to court to verify how the system operates. Understood by a layperson.
o Only hearsay if it’s the direct product of human intervention. Only human role in CCTV is installation and programming, which do not raise CCTV concerns. Human intervention must go directly to the content.
o Distinguished CCTV from a computer printout, where content may be shaped by human input.
o To admit CCTV, prove provenance and authenticity, confirm chain of custody, and prove that footage is intelligible and of sufficient quality. - 1111. Hearsay Exception – Admissions?Statements made by a party that is adverse or contrary to their cause – traditionally courts considered that admissions were reliable because a person does not usually speak against their interest.
Special rules apply to admissions of accused – confessions or pre-trial statements. - 1212. Hearsay Exceptions – Res Gestae?Teper v R [1952] AC 480, per Lord Normand
o The term res gestae means the ‘matter’ or ‘transaction’. In the context of the hearsay rule, it refers to a statement so closely related in time, place and circumstance with some act or event that it is part of it.
Ratten v R [1972] - The res gestae exception applies when:
‘[T]he statement was made [after the event] in circumstances of spontaneity or involvement in the event so that the possibility of concoction can be disregarded’.
The exception does not apply when: statement was made by way of narrative of a detached prior event so that the speaker was so disengaged from it as to be able to construct or adapt his account …’.
- Criticised in Holmes v Newman [1931] - ‘[Res gestae is] a phrase adopted to provide a respectable legal cloak for a variety of cases to which no formula of precision can be applied’. - 1313 How contemporaneous does statement have to be for res gestae?Traditionally, test was strict:
Teper – 20 minutes after fire, woman shouted “your place burning and you’re going away from the fire”.
- Special danger when relying on hearsay for identification. Have to interpret the rule strictly.
Crosby - Bystanders told the guards that within 1 minute of being stabbed he identified his assailant. This was deemed contemporaneous.
R v Andrews – move away for contemporaneity - composite approach’ whereby the trial judge gives equal weight to the requirement of contemporaneity and the possibility of concoction or fabrication. - 1414 Modern Application of Res Gestae - Lonergan?DPP v Lonergan [2009]
o Murder at a house party – 4 witnesses gave statements, ranging from immediately fater, to minutes later, to 15 minutes later.
o CCA – endorsed Andrews’ ‘composite approach’ – equal weight given to requirement of contemporaneity and possibility of concoction or fabrication. - Time is significant but not sole factor.
o Here, defence neither contested that statements were made nor suggested any motive for concoction.
o Statements admissible – part of same transaction, sufficiently contemporaneous, no opportunity for fabrication. - 15Modern Application of Res Gestae – Connorton?DPP v Connorton [2023]:
o Appellant convicted of murder in a ‘love triangle’ case. Woman had new partner while living with ex. Argument started, ex stabbed the new partner.
Woman made emergency 999 call shortly after, identifying the appellant. Declared hostile witness at trial.
SC Confirmed that hearsay was at issue even though she was a witness. 999 call admissible under res gestae exception.
o Woulfe J noted resemblance to Lonergan with no motive suggested for witness concoction.
o Collins J cautioned that traditional language that there should be no possibility of concoction shouldn't be applied literally – just sufficiently exclude reasonable possibility of concoction.
o Charleton J favoured broad reading – declarations that are near contemporaneous and because of their enmeshment in events, are not hearsay. - 1616. Dying Declarations?- Statement made by the deceased victim and relating to the cause of their injuries.
- Made when the deceased was under a “settled, hopeless expectation of death.” – rationale that they’re motivated to tell the truth.
- LRC did not recommend abolition, but proposed that TJ’s warn juries that declarations may be unreliable. - 1717. Business records exception?Myers v DPP highlighted need for legislative reform on business records.
Now permitted for use in criminal case and civil cases, including white-collar crime.
Criminal Evidence Act 1992:
o S 5: document must have been compiled in the ordinary course of business.
o S 6: Person in management can certify that statutory requirements have been met (form of certificate evidence).
o S 8: TJ may exclude a document in interests of justice. - 1818. Example of Business Records?Hickey – print-out from two different computer systems were business records, but composite document tendered by prosecution was not.
- Smith – telephone records/social media records = business transactions: phone companies are set up to make profits, based on records made in the ordinary course of business. = Admissible.
- Bisset – log book of Salvation Army hostel was an admissible business record. - 1919. Certificate evidence exception?- S 25 Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 – certificate signed by a registered medical practitioner and relating to examination of a person allegedly injured by an assault.
- DPP v C – prosecution sought to tender a medical certificate signed by a doctor who had not actually seen the patient but gave his opinion.
- SC – inadmissible hearsay. S 25 limited to certificates provided by a person who carried out, supervised, or was involved in the examination.
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Law Karteikarten am Hearsay, erstellt von Michael Gormley am 06/12/2023.
- Erstellt von
- Michael Gormley · Dez 2023
- Aktualisiert
- 9 Dez 2023
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung