Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is said in s.114 (1) CJA 2003 |
"In criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admissible as evidence only if ..." In essence this lays out the statutory exceptions of the exclusion of hearsay evidence |
|
|
What is s. 114 (1)(d) CJA 2003 about |
This is the safety valve provision - "in the interest of justice ..." |
|
|
What is s. 115 (2) CJA about ? |
This is the definition of a 'statement' for the purposes of hearsay - v. v. wide |
|
|
What is s. 115 (3) about? |
(a) and (b) of this section in essence excludes implied assertions (which is problematic as evidenced in Kearley) from being a part of Hearsay altogether. |
|
|
What is the provision s.118(8)(2) about ? |
This provision states that all other common law rules relating to the admissibility of hearsay is abolished if not mentioned in the act. |
|
|
What does Cross say about hearsay |
"An assertion other than one made in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted" - NB this is only a starting point |
|
|
R v Gibson |
This is a 'classic case' of hearsay evidence. Here V was hit on the head with a stone and was told when he was 'coming around' that the person who had thrown the stone had gone into the house belonging to G. It was held in the case that this evidence had been wrongly admitted. |
|
|
What happened in Chandrasekera? |
The case here involved a woman who had had her throat slit, allegedly, by C had nodded when asked if it was him who had slit her throat. Her nod was held to come under the rule of hearsay and is regarded a statement |
|
|
Dodson and Williams [1984] |
This case involved the novel area in relation to evidence pertaining to the use of CCTV evidence. In this case the defendants were caught on CCTV camera during an attempted robbery. The CCTV camera's took pictures in a few second increments and it is noted in the case that at some point the defendants had been facing the CCTV camera and the photographs were clear - so clear that in interview the defendants had in essence confessed - one saying that he had been approached just before and asked if he wanted to make money. The jury had been told to proceed with caution but also it was held by the reporter that in this case we had 12 jurors deciding whether or not the men they saw on the stand were the men in pictures - they were because of the pictures "making the identification of each case yourselves" |
|
|
Taylor v Chief Constable of Cheshire |
Here the defendant was caught on camera stealing batteries from a shop, this was seen by a security guard who showed it to a manager and the tape was seen subsequently by police officers on two occasions. The tape was left with the store for safe keeping but by the time of the trial the videos had been erased by new security guard. It was argued by the defence that the video would have been admissible but the evidence of police officers was not and amounted to hearsay evidence. The prosecution - the prosecution held that this was no in fact hearsay as the police officers were adducing evidence of what they had seen not an account of another person as to what they saw on the tape. Gibson L.J - in effect sided with the prosecution. He quotes Denning in the case of Hunter who says "nowadays we do not confine ourselves to the best evidence we must admit all relevant evidence" He also quotes Marshall in the case of Maqsud Ali "[it is] wrong to deny the law of evidence advantages to be gained by new techniques, new devices, provided that the accuracy of the recording can be proved" |
