-
(pre 2003) Someone else had confessed to the offence D was charged with. Inadmissible hearsay.
Turner
-
(pre 2003) Microfilms of car manufacturer's records were inadmissible hearsay, although reliable
Myers v DPP
-
(pre 2003) 17 people called at D's house to buy drugs while police officers were there. Their statements could not be used to show that D was a dealer - hearsay.
Kearley (implied assertions)
-
(pre 2003) 4 year old was assaulted. She told her mother that the attacker was coloured (D was white). This was hearsay and inadmissible.
Sparks
-
(pre 2003) Witness saw registration number of vehicle and told police officer, who wrote it down but did not get witness to verify it. Notes were inadmissible hearsay.
McLean
-
A diary was not hearsay, because it had not been intended to be read by anyone else.
N (2007)
-
Recorded conversation about the price of drugs (mentioning D's name)
MK (2008) - not hearsay, the purpose of the conversation had not been to make anyone believe that MK was the supplier, it had been to find out the price of drugs
-
Hearsay evidence of anonymous witnesses is completely inadmissible
Mayers (2009)
-
If evidence is admitted under s.116, the judge must explain to the jury that they should place less weight on it because it cannot be subjected to cross-examination
McCoy (1999)
-
s.116 (physical or mental condition) 79 yo victim did not have to testify because there was medical evidence that she might suffer blindness or a stroke if she did
Millett
-
s.116 (outside the UK) 'attendance' includes attendance by video link
Radak
-
s.116 (witness cannot be found) a phonecall and a voicemail message were not 'such steps as is reasonably practicable to find him'
Adams (2008)
-
(pre 2003) s.116 (fear) witness was apprehensive about testifying. This was not 'fear' under the Act
Parkinson
-
s.116 (fear) the CofA said that the judge had to balance the subjective element of fear with the objective element of fairness - the trial judge was in the best position to make this assessment
Doherty
-
Overruled case - statement made by victim a few minutes after her throat was cut was not admissible under res gestae
Bedingfield
-
Res gestae leading case - victim was stabbed and shortly after gave D's name to police.
Andrews - the event that gave rise to the statement must have been so dramatic that the victim's statement was an instinctive reaction
-
Res gestae was defined to include events preceding the event, provided the event was intense and stressful enough to guarantee honesty
Rattan - phone call by D's wife to emergency services shortly before she was shot would have been admissible as res gestae (but it was actually admitted as original evidence)
-
Girl's call to the police was not admissible as res gestae, because she had spoken to multiple people between the event and the phonecall
Harris
-
Res gestae - victim was drunk and had a strong Scottish accent. His statement was still admissible under res gestae.
Turnbull
-
Res gestae should not be used to avoid calling a witness who was available
AG's Ref (No 1 of 2003)
-
Res gestae (statement with accompanying act) example of case
McCay - police officer gave evidence that witness had pointed at eighth person in identification parade and said 'it is number 8'
-
Statement of intention can only sometimes come under res gestae (two cases)
- Wainwright - victim made statement that she intended to visit D. Not admissible, it was just a statement and may not have been carried out.
- Buckley - police officer said he was going to go and look for D. This was admitted.
-
It was said that s.114(1)(d) (in the interests of justice) should not be used to avoid the stricter requirements of the other gateways
ED (2010)
-
The ECtHR said that a conviction will not be fair if based mainly on evidence that the defendant has not had a chance to question
PS v Germany - this has been rejected by the CofA
-
Why did the English courts reject the ECtHR conclusion that a conviction should not be based mainly on evidence that the defendant has not had a chance to question? (2 reasons)
- The law allows for the reliability and credibility of hearsay evidence to be tested in other ways
- The jury is capable of assessing the relative weight of hearsay evidence
-
In what case was it held that the UK did not automatically breach Art 6 where a verdict rested substantially on hearsay evidence?
Al-Khawaja and Tahery (2011)
|
|
