Evidence:

Harold’s statement in his diary

S114(1)
Question 7 2014 Zone A Matter stated: s115(3) Cja 2003
R v K(N) – x matter stated. X
Gerald is charged with murdering Harold, the lover of his wife, Jemima. The prosecution alleges that hearsay.

Gerald hit Harold over the head with a heavy sandbag he was using to protect his property from Relevant, therefore admissible.
flooding when Harold walked by. Gerald tells the police that he acted in self defence because Harold
came up to him in an aggressive way and threatened to kill him. The prosecution wish to introduce an
entry in Harold’s diary from 10 days earlier: ‘I am getting really frightened now that Jemima has told me
Evidence:
that Gerald suspects that we are having an affair. But should I just behave as if everything is normal?’ Passerby -> Zebedee-> court
Zebedee, a reporter from the local newspaper, had come to interview Gerald about the flooding and
Statement by unidentified
was at his property a few minutes after Harold died. Zebedee claims that he interviewed an unidentified passerby
passer-by who pointed to Gerald, saying: ‘I just saw that man walk up to the other guy and sandbag him Repeated by Zebedee
Matter stated? S115(3).
for no reason.’ Gerald has one previous conviction for an assault occasioning grievous bodily harm from Hearsay.
ten years ago, to which he pleaded not guilty. The victim of Gerald’s assault on that occasion was the S116 – [s114(1)(a)]
Teper
then lover of his wife, Jemima. Jemima refuses to give evidence. Competency and compellability of Inadmissible hearsay
jemima
Evidence:
Discuss the evidential issues arising, adding critical comment where you think the law is unsatisfactory. S101(1)(d) + s101(3) + Hanson
Amreeta  Court NOT HEARSAY

Oral hearsay

Amreeta  you court SINGLE HEARSAY

Amreeeta  you  mother  court MULTIPLE HEARSAY

Amreeta  police  court SINGLE HEARSAY

Amreeta  you  police  court MULTIPLE HEARSAY

Amreeeta  you  mother  dad  court MULTIPLE HEARSAY

Documentary hearsay

Amreeta  story Instagram (document)  Court SINGLE HEARSAY

Amreeta  you  story Instagram  court MULTIPLE HEARSAY

Janet’s statement
(Eye witness)
Is it hearsay s114(1):
Statement s115(2)
Matter stated s115(3)
Hearsay only admissible where
one of the admissibility provisions
apply.
S116
Maker competent – s123
Maker identified – Teper
Maker unavailable s116(2)
Res gestae- hour to arrive
Conclude: s116 applies
Therefore, the hearsay is
admissible.
Exclusionary discretion- s126
-drunk, died alcohol poisoning,
window, night.
QUESTION 5 Evidence 2012 (Zone A) Statement by unidentified man
Peter was fatally stabbed outside the Out There pub on Theobald Street at 11pm on 10th July 2011. Is it hearsay s114(1):
Police were called. It took the police an hour to arrive. PC Logger says that on his arrival a woman called Statement s115(2)
Janet told him that George had committed the murder. Logger immediately set off to look for George. Matter stated s115(3)
Logger knew George from previous dealings and headed to George’s regular hang-out, some three miles Twist; Singh.
away. Logger found George smoking a cigarette outside the Easytake café. On approach, Logger heard
Conclude: Not matter stated,
an unidentified man say to George, “The Out There pub wasn’t much fun tonight then?” Logger arrested S114 does not restrict its admissibility.
George, who gave a no comment interview. –right to silence, s34 CJPOA, adverse inference, Gill, Pethkar Therefore, as long a it is relevant, It is
admissible.
Isabelle, the girlfriend of the deceased Peter, who lives above the Out There pub, says she witnessed the
whole incident from her first floor window. She recognised the assailant as George. She knows George Implies George was at the out there
well because she used to be his girlfriend. George used to beat her severely and she is afraid to testify pub. Implied assertion.
Implied assertions are not caught by
against him. She is terrified that he or one of his relatives will order her murder if she is seen to be
the rule against hearsay, following the
responsible for his conviction. He is rumoured to have issued such threats to other persons in the past. inclusion of “matter stated”, CJA 2003.
Janet was drinking in the Out There pub on the night in question and provided the police with a Statement is admissible.
statement that she saw, through the pub window, George stab Peter. Janet has since died of alcohol
poisoning.
George is now due to stand trial. He claims he was at the Easytake café all evening and was not in the
vicinity of the Out There pub. In a statement made to George’s solicitor, Arnie, the owner of the
Easytake café, claims that George was there all evening and that he remembers it well as it was exactly a
week before Arnie was due to emigrate to Argentina. Arnie refuses to return from Argentina to give
evidence at trial.
Discuss the evidential issues arising.
Answer Outline

-Janet told PC Logger that George had committed the murder- Hearsay (general discussion)

-Logger heard an unidentified man say to George –Hearsay (general discussion)

-George who gave a no comment interview – Right to Silence

-She recognised the assailant as George- ID Evidence (No Turnbull warning needed as she was his
girlfriend)

-George used to beat her up and she is afraid to testify against him- Hearsay-Section 116 (1)(c),
condition (e)

-Janet has since died of alcohol poisoning- Hearsay-Section 116 (1)(c), condition (a)

-Arnie refuses to return from Argentina to give evidence at trial- overseas- Hearsay- Section 116(1)(c),
condition (c)