18. Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence in criminal cases most often arises in two situations: if a witness testifies about facts of which he has no personal knowledge because the facts were communicated to the witness by another person who is not in court; and where a witness’ written statement is put before the court because the witness is unable to attend court to give oral evidence. This chapter discusses the general rule of hearsay evidence; identifying hearsay evidence; statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule; hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; hearsay admissible under the preserved common law rules; procedure for admitting hearsay evidence; and hearsay evidence and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950.

11. Hearsay Evidence

Chapter 11 discusses the law on hearsay evidence. It covers the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings, now governed by the Civil Evidence Act 1995; other proceedings in which the hearsay rule is inapplicable; and the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings.

Hearsay evidence in Uganda: Understanding its meaning, admissibility and probative value

In Uganda legislation requires witnesses to adduce direct evidence in court. However, this may not be possible in all cases and the law provides for circumstances in which hearsay may be admissible. The Evidence Act is the main piece of legislation which governs the issue evidence. In this article, the author relied on 539 cases in which the Ugandan High Court, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court have dealt with hearsay evidence to establish the principles which these courts have developed on this issue. This case law shows, inter alia, that there are three major issues that Ugandan courts are still grappling with when it comes to hearsay evidence: the definition of hearsay; the admissibility of hearsay (exceptions to the hearsay rule) and the probative value of hearsay evidence. The author suggests ways in which courts can handle these issues.

18. Hearsay Evidence

Hearsay evidence in criminal cases most often arises in two situations: if a witness testifies about facts of which he has no personal knowledge because the facts were communicated to the witness by another person who is not in court; and where a witness’ written statement is put before the court because the witness is unable to attend court to give oral evidence. This chapter discusses the general rule of hearsay evidence; identifying hearsay evidence; statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule; hearsay evidence under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003; hearsay admissible under the preserved common law rules; procedure for admitting hearsay evidence; and hearsay evidence and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 1950.

Defining the Scope of the Hearsay Rule in Criminal Cases: A Comparative Perspective

This chapter offers, from a comparative perspective, a consideration of possible approaches to defining the scope of the hearsay rule in criminal cases. In The Principles of Criminal Evidence (1989), Adrian Zuckerman called for a more flexible approach to criminal hearsay doctrine than that prevailing in England and Wales at the time. Some three decades later, the major common law jurisdictions retain rules that have the effect, broadly speaking, of presumptively excluding hearsay evidence in criminal cases. There has been considerable judicial and academic focus in recent times on issues associated with the exceptions to such exclusionary rules. This chapter examines a related question that, although fundamental, has attracted far less attention and remains relatively under-explored: what is, and what should be, the precise scope of the rules that presumptively exclude hearsay evidence in criminal cases? It is noted that the decision of the Supreme of Court of Canada in R v Baldree (2013) offers a radically different approach to this question from that taken in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (England and Wales), the US Federal Rules of Evidence, the Australian uniform evidence legislation, or the Evidence Act 2006 (New Zealand). In the light of a consideration of the approaches taken in various jurisdictions and the implications of these approaches, the chapter concludes that the Canadian approach provides the most sensible basis for possible reform. Some suggestions on the way in which the relevant law in England and Wales might be reformed are also offered.

13. Hearsay admissible by statute in civil proceedings

Under the common law rule against hearsay, any assertion, other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, was inadmissible if tendered as evidence of the facts asserted. The Civil Evidence Act 1968 constituted a major assault upon the common law rule in civil proceedings by making provisions for the admissibility of both oral and written hearsay subject to certain conditions. In June 1988 the Civil Justice Review recommended an inquiry by a law reform agency into the usefulness of the hearsay rule in civil proceedings and the machinery for rendering it admissible. The subsequent recommendations of the Law Commission were put into effect by the Civil Evidence Act 1995. This chapter discusses the admissibility of hearsay under the Civil Evidence Act 1995; safeguards; proof of statements contained in documents; evidence formerly admissible at common law; and Ogden tables.