Quiz
Hearsay Evidence
Create a free account to finish this quiz
Save your progress and see your final score.
Already have an account? Sign in
Questions in this quiz (50)
1Primary hearsay - direct evidence that a statement was made (irrespective of its truth or falsehood) and is admissible solely for that purpose.
Secondary hearsay - evidence that is the truth of what is contained in a statement made by someone other than the witness.- ATrue
- BFalse
2A man charged with possession of ammunition claimed that he had been under duress by terrorists and sought to bring hearsay evidence of what they said to him. This was admissible - the point at issue was whether the statements ere made. Thus, if the accused felt under duress, not whether the content of the statements were true, that terrorists would carry out the threat.
- AHMA v Flanders
- BSubramaniam v Public Prosecutor
- CPatterson v HMA
3McLaren was charged with keeping a house as a brothel. Evidence given by police about third parties in the house talking about short time was admissible as this was evidence only that the conversations took place and cast light on the nature of the premises. The implied assertion was that the house was kept as a brothel, not that she was a madam.
- AHMA v Ronald
- BLow v HMA
- CMcLaren v Macleod
4A police officer gave evidence of of a witness who said that two men asked to be directed to a person who sold drugs, and she referred them to the house in the indictment. Not admissible as it could lead to the identification of the accused as the person the witness contacted so could be prejudicial.
- AHMA v Joseph
- BO’Hara v SMT
- COgilvie v HMA
5Res gestae covers statements, physical reactions such as vomitting, express and implied assertions of participants and observers.
- ATrue
- BFalse
6Res gestae is admissible insofar as there is a close association between the utterance and the event. There is no need for contemporaneity though there must be no time for reflection.
- AO’Hara v SMT
- BO’Shea v HMA
- CO'Farrell v HMA
7The complainer who had earlier refuted advances from the accused was found naked with him, immediately saying 'he raped me'. This was held not to be part of the res gestae as the utterance was made after the event.
- ACordiner v HMA
- BCollins v HMA
- CCinci v HMA
8The accused was convicted of murder and attempted murder which followed from a brick having been put through his window. Evidence that his girlfriend said 'those bastards put a brick through my window and my man is round there' held part of res gestae. The test is whether the statement is part of the event or part of the report - anything said in the vicinity of the event part of res gestae until point event ended.
- AO’Shea v HMA
- BO'Hara v HMA
- CCarberry v HMA
9Does the court allow any latitude of time with respect to res gestae where statement clearly made under continuing psychological pressure?
- AYes
- BNo
10De recenti statements are generally admissible
- ATrue
- BFalse
11When are de recenti statements admissible?
- ATo show consistency of witnesses story, their credibility or otherwise
- BNever
12Complainer had been attacked and later came home in an anxious state claiming to have been assaulted. Admissible only to bolster other evidence and indicate consistency but not to prove assault.
- AN v HMA
- BMacdonald v HMA
- CMorton v HMA
13A woman who had been assaulted did not say anything until three days later. Whether a statement is de recenti depends on circumstances - the girl spoke to her mother at the next time she saw her, so admissible.
- AFrew v Jessop
- BAnderson v McFarlane
- CDavies v McGuire
14A girl who had been rape confided in a friend, though there was no official report until the friend told the school. She denied actually making statement to friend. Held, the value of the de recenti statement was evidence that it was made - the maker need not be cross examined as to content. It could only be used for the limited purpose of bolstering/taking away credibility, not to corroborate evidence.
- AA v HMA
- BAhmed v HMA
- CAnderson v Jas
15Can evidence of a prior inconsistent statement be led to prove truth of content?
- AYes
- BNo, only to lend weight to consistency
16Evidence may be lead that a statement made on a matter pertinent to an issue at trial is different to the evidence given a trial.
- As 263 CPSA
- Bs 265 CPSA
- Cs 266 CPSA
17A witness previously said that the accused stabbed the complainer and asked her to dispose of the knife. She later denied this. Evidence of the statement could only be allowed if she was informed of the time & place statement was alleged to have been made in addition to actual statement.
- AMaxwell v HMA
- BPatterson v HMA
- CJamieson v HMA
18A witness gave evidence at trial inconsistent with an earlier statement. In directing jury, sheriff noted the inconsistency. Held to be a precognition since given after preliminary investigation had passed so inadmissible.
- AKerr v HMA
- BMaxwell v HMA
- CHMA v Beggs
19Whether a statement is a precognition is a matter for the trial judge. If an open question, it is left to the jury.
- ASandlan v HMA
- BMoir v HMA
- CLow v HMA
20A witness can adopt a prior statement into oral evidence in court.
- As 260 CPSA
- Bs 262 CPSA
- Cs 263 CPSA
21What are the conditions for adopting a prior statement into oral evidence?
- AStatement is in a document
- BNotice is given to accused
- CAdopted by the witness
- DCompetent witness at the time the statement was made
- EWhere direct oral evidence would be admissible
22A precognition is not admissible unless made under oath.
- As 262 CPSA
- Bs 263 CPSA
23Witnesses made inconsistent statements. Held that mere initially of a statement by a witness is being true is not sufficient for adoption.
- AHMA v Rutherford
- BJohnston v Allan
- CA v HMA
24What are the conditions that must be satisfied before a prior statement is evidence of its content?
- AWitness remembers intimate details of statement
- BThe witness remembers making the statement - just that it was made, not necessarily all of its content
- CIt was true
- DWitness recollects events within the statement
- EPolice officer gives evidence regarding statement
- FUnambiguous acceptance
25Hearsay is allowed where the maker is unavailable as witness.
- As 259 CPSA
- Bs 103 CPSA
- Cs 254 CPSA
26What are the grounds by which a maker will be deemed 'unavailable'?
- AMaker does not live near the court
- BMaker of the statement is dead or unfit/unable to give evidence in a competent manner
- CMaker abroad and it is not practical to secure attendance or obtain evidence by alternative means
- DMaker under stress or fatigue
- EThe maker is identified but cannot be found
- FThe maker is entitled to refuse oath or to give evidence on the ground of right to non-incrimination
- GMaker refused to take oath or give evidence for any reason
27A key prosecution witness died prior to trial. A previous statement was admitted, it being immaterial that he was an alcoholic. Only incompetent witness if permanently or temporarily insane or unable to understand difference between truth and falsehood.
- APatterson v HMA
- BMuldoon v Herron
- CK v Kennedy
28The Crown deserted a rape trial and began fresh prosecution but by this point the complainer was mentally ill and unable to give evidence. A previous statement was admitted, not being a breach of Art due to safeguards of corroboration and the provision permitting a challenge to reliability and credibility of hearsay.
- AJamieson v HMA
- BHMA v Nulty
- CHMA v Norman
29A child witness broke down and was unable to answer further questions. A 259 application was granted on the ground that the witness refused to give evidence due to anxiety. On appeal, held that there must be a refusal after being directed by the judge, not an incapability. Absence of direction is fatal.
- AMacdonald v HMA
- BMackintosh v HMA
- CMcPherson v HMA
30What are the conditions to s 259 applying?
- AEvidence would be admissible if the person gave direct oral evidence of it
- BPerson a competent witness at time of making statement
- CStatement must always be in document
- DWould entitle jury to find the statement was made - either contained in document or the person giving direct oral evidence had direct personal knowledge of it
31Two eye witnesses identified the accused as being involved but then could not identify at trial. The police gave evidence to say that the accused persons were the ones identified. Admissible as primary hearsay - that the statement was made not that it was accurate.
- AMaxwell v HMA
- BMuldoon v Herron
- CMorgan v HMA
32Two witnesses identified the characteristics of a driver and passenger in drunk driving case. At trial, witnesses could not remember how they described them nor whether the accused was the driver in question. Evidence from police admissible as secondary hearsay, being an exception to the general rule (distinguishing Muldoon).
- ATSB v James Mills
- BDavies v McGuire
- CFrew v Jessop
33Confirmed Muldoon.
- AMaxwell v HMA
- BMorrison v HMA
34Prior identification evidence is not an exception - it is sufficient that the witness confirms a true statement was made then the police give evidence.
- AJamieson v HMA
- BJohnston v HMA
35Hearsay does not automatically prevent a fair trial but may do in certain circumstances. Hearsay evidence of a deceased witness was given and this was the sole and decisive evidence. Initially, held to be a breach.
- AAl-Khawaja v UK
- BAnderson v Jas
36It was later said that hearsay does not automatically prevent a fair trial but there must be good reasons for the witnesses non-attendance. There is no automatic breach. When might there be a breach?
- AIf the accused objects
- BIf the conviction is predicated upon sole or decisive evidence coming from a witness who has not been crossed examined.
37The courts must subject the proceedings to the most searching scrutiny. There must also be counterbalancing factors, such as strong procedural safeguards.
- ATrue
- BFalse
38A statement from a witness who died was admissible because if the witness had been alive, it would have been admitted. He would have given direct oral evidence and been cross examined. Not a breach Art 6 as procedural safeguards in place - corroboration and special direction given to jury on how to interpret statement.
- AVarey v HMA
- BHMA v Beggs
- COgilvie v HMA
39A witness raised an additional claim that had not been referred to in previous statement. The trial was abandoned and a second resumed but at this point, the witness was unable to give evidence. Admitting a transcript of the previous court case was inadmissible as it breached the accused's Art 6 right since he was deprived of ability to cross examine witness.
- AN v HMA
- BB v HMA
- CS v HMA
40In civil cases, evidence is not to be excluded solely on the ground that it is hearsay, including primary and secondary hearsay.
- As 2 Civil Evidence (S) Act 1988
- Bs 4 Civil Evidence (S) Act 1988
41Hearsay is admissible only insofar as to reflect favourably or otherwise on that person's credibility.
- As 1 Civil Evidence (S) Act 1988
- Bs 3 Civil Evidence (S) Act 1988
42Does a statement include a precognition?
- AYes, s 6
- BNo, s 6
43Can an uncorroborated pursuer succeed on the basis of hearsay alone?
- AYes, but court has discretion as to how much weight to attach
- BNo, rule against this
44There was a machinery dispute. Person who made statements about machinery not able to attend but statement relied upon. Deemed admissible but not weighty because not conclusive.
- ATSB v James Mills
- BRBS v Franco
45A child had been reported to CHP due to lewd and libidinous behaviour to which the father was involved. Later retracted statement including before sheriff. Sheriff entitled to rely on previous statement, there being no other corroborative evidence.
- AK v Kennedy
- BJF v Kennedy
46Social workers spoke to children about treatment at home. Their recollection was admissible because s 2 only allowed admission of hearsay where the person could have been a competent witness - child just three years old.
- AR v Kennedy
- BJF v Kennedy
47Vulnerable Witnesses (S) Act 2004 s 24 abolishes the competency test in civil and criminal cases
- ATrue
- BFalse
48What may have been said to a precognoser is admissible as well as what is actually in the statement.
- ATrue
- BFalse
49What is said to precognoser and recollected is competent - what is recorded is not.
- AAnderson v Jas
- BHolland v Jad
50Evidence of a prior inconsistent statement is allowed under s 3 and then witness can be cross examined as to inconsistency and credibility.
- ADavies v McGuire
- BDavid v McIntosh
Information
- Description
- Quiz on Hearsay Evidence, created by Shannon Russell on 11/05/2015.
- Author
- Shannon Russell
- Language
- English
- Views
- 0
- Rating
- No ratings yet Rate this quiz