Definition and admissibility of hearsay evidence

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

Bella is on trial for conspiracy to supply controlled substances. The prosecution’s case heavily relies on an out-of-court statement from her alleged co-conspirator, Elijah. Before being placed under witness protection overseas, Elijah gave a detailed account of Bella’s alleged role in arranging drug shipments. Due to safety concerns, Elijah cannot be called to testify in person. Bella’s defense argues that admitting Elijah’s statement would breach the hearsay rule under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003.


Which of the following is the single best basis for admitting Elijah’s statement under the CJA 2003?

Introduction

Hearsay evidence, as defined under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, occupies an important position within evidentiary law. It pertains to statements made outside the court proceedings that are presented to prove the truth of their contents. Understanding the specifics of hearsay is essential, given its impact on the admissibility of evidence and the administration of justice. The CJA 2003 provides a comprehensive framework outlining the conditions under which hearsay evidence may be admitted or excluded in legal proceedings.

Definition of Hearsay

Under Section 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, hearsay evidence is defined as a statement not made in oral evidence in the current proceedings but is relied upon to prove the truth of its contents. Essentially, it includes any out-of-court statement—whether written or spoken—presented to establish a fact during a trial.

Historically, common law has exhibited skepticism towards hearsay evidence due to several concerns. Primarily, hearsay denies the opposing party the opportunity to cross-examine the declarant, challenging the reliability and credibility of the statement. Additionally, the lack of an oath or affirmation raises questions about the truthfulness of the evidence. The inability to observe the demeanor of the individual making the statement further complicates the assessment of their credibility. These factors collectively contribute to the cautious approach courts have traditionally adopted regarding the admissibility of hearsay evidence.

Understanding this basic definition is significant as it sets the stage for examining how hearsay is treated under the statutory framework of the CJA 2003.

Admissibility Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the law on hearsay, introducing a more structured and flexible approach to its admissibility while maintaining safeguards to ensure fairness in legal proceedings. Section 114 of the Act outlines the primary gateways through which hearsay evidence may be admitted:

  1. Statutory Provisions: Hearsay evidence is admissible if any provision of the Act or any other statute makes it admissible.

  2. Preserved Common Law Exceptions: Certain common law exceptions to the hearsay rule are retained, allowing for the admission of specific categories of hearsay evidence.

  3. Agreement Between the Parties: If all parties to the proceedings agree, hearsay evidence may be admitted.

  4. Interests of Justice: The court has discretion to admit hearsay evidence if it is in the interests of justice to do so.

Here's the point: the "Interests of Justice" provision grants courts discretion to admit hearsay evidence based on a comprehensive assessment. This flexibility ensures that relevant and reliable evidence is not excluded merely due to its hearsay nature.

Interests of Justice Provision

Under Section 114(2) of the CJA 2003, courts consider several factors when determining whether admitting hearsay evidence serves the interests of justice:

  • Probative Value: The extent to which the evidence is likely to prove a matter in issue.

  • Other Evidence: Availability of other evidence on the same point.

  • Reliability: The reliability of the evidence, considering how it was prepared and its source.

  • Difficulty in Challenging: The possibility for the opposing party to challenge the evidence.

  • Delay or Expense: The likely impact on the proceedings in terms of time and cost.

Why are these considerations so important? They serve to balance the need for admitting valuable evidence against the potential prejudice to the defendant, ensuring that the proceedings remain fair and just.

Key Exceptions and Applications

Statutory Exceptions

  1. Unavailability of the Witness (Section 116): Hearsay evidence is admissible when the witness is unavailable due to reasons such as death, physical or mental unfitness, being outside the UK and not practicable to secure attendance, or fear.

    For instance, in R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, the Supreme Court upheld the admissibility of statements from absent witnesses, emphasizing the safeguards within the CJA 2003.

  2. Business and Other Documents (Section 117): Documents created or received in the course of a trade or business can be admitted as evidence. This exception acknowledges the routine nature of such records and their usual reliability.

  3. Previous Inconsistent Statements (Section 119): Statements made by a witness that are inconsistent with their testimony can be used as evidence of the truth of their contents.

  4. Statements in Furtherance of Common Enterprise (Section 117(1)(c)): Statements made in the course and in furtherance of a joint criminal enterprise.

Preserved Common Law Exceptions

  1. Res Gestae: Statements made spontaneously at the time of an event, considered reliable due to their immediacy. For example, in R v Andrews [1987] AC 281, the courts allowed a victim's statement made shortly after being stabbed.

  2. Confessions and Admissions: Declarations against interest by the defendant are admissible under common law, subject to the safeguards provided by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

  3. Public Information: Statements in public documents or records, such as birth or death registers, are admissible due to their official nature.

Civil vs. Criminal Contexts

In civil proceedings, the Civil Evidence Act 1995 significantly relaxed the rules on hearsay, allowing such evidence to be admissible provided that proper notice is given to the other parties. The weight accorded to hearsay in civil cases is assessed based on its reliability and the opportunity for the opposing party to challenge it.

In contrast, criminal proceedings maintain stricter controls to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial, as enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The CJA 2003 provides specific conditions and exceptions for the admissibility of hearsay, ensuring that the defendant's rights are not infringed. While the approach to hearsay differs between civil and criminal proceedings, the core challenge remains: ensuring that only reliable evidence informs the outcome of a case.

Procedural Requirements

Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) Part 20

To admit hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, compliance with procedural requirements is essential. The Criminal Procedure Rules outline the following:

  1. Notice Requirement: A party intending to introduce hearsay evidence must serve a notice to the court and other parties, specifying the evidence and the basis for its admissibility.

  2. Content of Notice: The notice should include details of the statement, the identity of the person who made it, and the grounds for its admissibility under the CJA 2003.

  3. Timing: The notice must be served as soon as practicable, typically within the time frames specified by the rules or directed by the court.

  4. Objections: Other parties may object to the admission of the hearsay evidence, stating their grounds for opposition.

Judicial Discretion and Challenges

Courts retain the discretion to exclude hearsay evidence under certain circumstances:

  • Section 78 of PACE 1984: Allows the court to exclude prosecution evidence if its admission would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that it ought not to be admitted.

  • General Discretion: The court may exercise its broad discretion to ensure that the proceedings are fair and just.

These procedural safeguards are in place to protect the rights of all parties and to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.

Practical Examples and Applications

Example 1: Business Records in Fraud Cases

Consider a prosecution in a fraud case where financial records from a company's accounts are presented as evidence. These records were created in the ordinary course of business before the alleged fraud was discovered.

Application: Under Section 117 of the CJA 2003, such business documents are admissible as hearsay evidence. The court will assess whether the documents were created contemporaneously and whether they are reliable. The case of R v Myers [1965] AC 1001 illustrates the admission of business records as an exception to the hearsay rule.

Example 2: Unavailable Witness in an Assault Case

Suppose a key witness to an assault is deceased but had previously given a statement to the police detailing the incident.

Application: Section 116(2)(a) allows for the admission of the deceased witness's statement. The court must consider the reliability of the statement and whether admitting it serves the interests of justice. In R v Davies [2006] EWCA Crim 2395, the court admitted a statement from a witness who had died before the trial.

Example 3: Res Gestae in a Homicide Investigation

In a murder investigation, a victim's last words identifying the assailant are sought to be admitted as evidence.

Application: The res gestae exception permits the admission of such spontaneous statements. The proximity to the event and the circumstances under which the statement was made contribute to its reliability. The case of R v Bedingfield (1879) 14 Cox CC 341 highlights the application and limitations of the res gestae doctrine.

Conclusion

The admissibility of hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 involves a complex interplay of statutory provisions, preserved common law exceptions, and procedural safeguards. Central to this framework is the balance between the necessity of admitting relevant evidence and the fundamental rights of the defendant.

Key principles from the Act, such as the statutory gateways outlined in Section 114(1), must be meticulously applied. The courts are tasked with assessing factors like the reliability of the evidence, the ability to challenge it, and the impact on the fairness of the proceedings. For example, the admission of a deceased witness's statement under Section 116 requires careful consideration of the circumstances under which the statement was made, as seen in cases like R v Davies.

The interaction between statutory exceptions and preserved common law doctrines, such as res gestae, demonstrates the Act's attempt to modernize the hearsay rule while retaining essential principles. Judicial discretion provided under Section 114(1)(d) allows courts to admit hearsay evidence in the interests of justice, ensuring that rigid rules do not obstruct the pursuit of truth.

Procedural requirements, particularly those outlined in the Criminal Procedure Rules Part 20, impose strict obligations on parties seeking to admit hearsay evidence. Compliance with notice provisions and consideration of objections are essential to uphold the adversarial nature of the proceedings.

In applying these principles, legal practitioners must carefully interpret the detailed statutory framework, ensuring that evidence is both admissible and reliable. A comprehensive understanding of these elements is essential for effectively handling hearsay evidence within the legal process.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Barbri SQE
One-time Fee
$3,800-6,900
BPP SQE
One-time Fee
$5,400-8,200
College of Legal P...
One-time Fee
$2,300-9,100
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Law Training Centr...
One-time Fee
$500-6,200
QLTS SQE
One-time Fee
$2,500-3,800
University of Law...
One-time Fee
$6,200-22,400

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal