The basic rule at common law, as stated in Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 9th edition:^[1] and approved by the House of Lords in R v Sharp,^[2]was to render inadmissible Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ... The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ... This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ... In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. ... Documentary evidence is any evidence introduced at a trial in the form of documents. ... Physical evidence is any evidence introduced in a trial in the form of a physical object, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics. ... Digital evidence or electronic evidence is any probative information stored or transmitted in digital form that a party to a court case may use at trial. ... Exculpatory evidence is the evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial, which clears or tends to clear the defendant of guilt. ... To meet Wikipedias quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. ... Demonstrative evidence is evidence used to help the fact-finder gain context for the facts of the case. ... Real evidence is a type of physical evidence and consists of objects that were involved in a case or actually played a part in the incident or transaction in question. ... Hearsay is a legal term that describes a class of evidence generally disallowed by most courts in the United States. ... Relevance, in the common law of evidence, is the tendency of a given item of evidence to prove or disprove one of the legal elements of the case, or to have probative value to make one of the elements of the case likelier or not. ... In the common law, burden of proof is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. ... In law, to lay a foundation means to provide sufficient evidence of the authenticity and relevance for the admission of the testimony of a witness, documentary evidence, or other piece of evidence. ... A subsequent remedial measure is a term used in the law of evidence (law) in the United States to describe an improvement or repair made to a structure following an injury caused by the condition of that structure. ... Character evidence is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe any testimony or document submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on the character or disposition of that person. ... Habit evidence is a term used in the law of evidence in the United States to describe any evidence submitted for the purpose of proving that a person acted in a particular way on a particular occasion based on that persons tendancy to reflexively respond to a particular situation... In the law of evidence, similar fact evidence (or the similar fact principle) establishes the conditions under which factual evidence of past misconduct of accused can be admitted at trial for the purpose of infering that the accused committed the misconduct at issue. ... Authentication, in the law of evidence, is the process by which documentary evidence and other physical evidence is proven to be genuine, and not a forgery. ... The chain of custody is a concept in jurisprudence which applies to the handling of evidence and its integrity. ... Judicial Notice is a rule of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known that it is cannot be refuted. ... The best evidence rule is a rule of evidence in the United States that requires that when writings are introduced as evidence in a trial, the original writing must be produced unless the party can account satisfactorily for its absence. ... A self authenticating document, under the law of evidence in the United States is any document that can be admitted into evidence at a trial without any proof being submitted to support the claim that the document is what it appears to be. ... An ancient document, in the law of evidence, refers to both a means of authentication for a piece of documentary evidence, and an exception to the hearsay rule. ... This article is about witnesses in law courts. ... In law, competence is conerns the mental capacity of a individual to participate in legal proceedings. ... This article is about permission granted by law or other rules. ... Direct examination (also called examination in chief) is the questioning of a witness by the party who called him or her, in a trial in a court of law. ... In law, cross-examination is the interrogation of a witness called by ones opponent. ... Witness impeachment, in the law of evidence, is the process of calling into question the credibility of an individual who is testifying in a trial. ... A recorded recollection, in the law of evidence, is a an exception to the hearsay rule which allows a witness to testify to the accuracy of a recording or documentation of their own out-of-court statement based on their recollection of the circumstances under which the statement was recorded... An expert witness is a witness, who by virtue of education, profession, publication or experience, is believed to have special knowledge of his or her subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon his opinion. ... A dead man statute is a statute designed to prevent perjury in a civil case by prohibiting a witness who is an interested party from testifying about communications or transactions with a decedent, unless there is a waiver. ... Hearsay may refer to: Hearsay in English Law and Hearsay in United States law, a legal principle concerning the admission of evidence through repetition of out-of-court statements HearSay, a British pop group Category: ... An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a shocking event. ... In the law of evidence, a dying declaration is testimony that would normally be barred as hearsay but may nonetheless be admitted as evidence in certain kinds of cases because it constituted the last words of a dying person. ... A party admission, in the law of evidence, is any statement made by a declarant who is a party to a lawsuit, which is offered as evidence against that party. ... An ancient document, in the law of evidence, refers to both a means of authentication for a piece of documentary evidence, and an exception to the hearsay rule. ... Declarations against interest are an exception to the rule on hearsay in which a persons statement may be used, where generally the content of the statement is so predjudicial to the person making it (such as confessing to a crime or admitting liability for a tort) that they would... A present sense impression, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person that conveys their sense of the state of certain things at the time the statement was made. ... This article is for the legal term Res Gestae. For the article on the record of the accomplishments of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, see the article for Res Gestae Divi Augusti. ... A learned treatise, in the law of evidence, is a text that is sufficiently authoritiative in its field to be admissible as evidence in a court in support of the contentions made therein. ... In the law of evidence, an implied assertion is a statement or conduct that infers some fact. ... A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce. ... Not to be confused with torte, an iced cake. ... This article or section does not cite any references or sources. ... In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ... The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ... The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential for unique and often severe impositions as punishment for failure to comply. ... Hearsay may refer to: Hearsay in English Law and Hearsay in United States law, a legal principle concerning the admission of evidence through repetition of out-of-court statements HearSay, a British pop group Category: ...

"any statement other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings ... as evidence of any fact or opinion stated"

A less pithy but clearer expression of the rule can be seen in Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor:^[3] Subramaniam v. ...

"Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made."

The basic hearsay principle applied to any statement, made orally or by conduct.^[4]

A substantial number of exceptions have been carved out of the hearsay rule, both by the common law and, more recently, statute. Civil and criminal hearsay law have also diverged, particularly in light of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 and Criminal Justice Acts 1988 and 2003. It may be helpful to regard the various 'rules' of hearsay as merely setting out exceptions to the general rule of inadmissibility. The hearsay rule is now predominantly regulated by statute. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003, c. ...

NB: Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 previous common law rules and statutory provisions were abolished and hearsay rules are now codified. Under Section 118 ^[5] of the Act certain common law categories of admissibly of hearsay evidence were preserved. Chapter 2 of Part 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reformed the law in relation to the admission of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. The act created 22 sections dealing with all aspects of the admissibility of hearsay evidence. The act repealed Part 2 and Schedule 2 (which relate to documentary evidence) and in Schedule 13, paragraphs 2 to 5 (which relate to documentary evidence in service courts etc) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. ^[6] The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003, c. ... The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003, c. ...

New Zealand is similar to the UK, and cites many British and Privy Council cases. However, the Evidence Act 1908 is slowly being replaced by the Evidence Act 2006 so there is some confusion still. For New Zealand law, but based around the old (and not repealed) act, please refer to Cross on Evidence, 8th New Zealand edition:^[7] or Adams on Criminal Law, 4th Student edition:^[8]

History of the rule

The rules of hearsay began to form properly in the late seventeenth century and had become fully established by the early nineteenth century. The issues were analysed in substantial detail in Wright v Doe d Tatham^[9]. The technical nature of the discussion in Doe d Tatham inhibited much reasoned progress of the law, whose progress (in the form of judicial capacity to reform it) ended not long afterwards.^[10] Later attempts to reform through the common law it got little further, with Lord Reid in Myers v DPP^[11] saying

"If we are to extend the law it must be by the development and application of fundamental principles. We cannot introduce arbitrary conditions or limitations; that must be left to legislation: and if we do in effect change the law, we ought in my opinion only to do that in cases where our decision will produce some finality or certainty. If we disregard technicalities in this case and seek to apply principle and common sense, there are a number of parts of the existing law of hearsay susceptible of similar treatment, ... The only satisfactory solution is by legislation following on a wide survey of the whole field ... A policy of make do and mend is not appropriate."

There was some statutory reform in the nineteenth century (see Bankers' Books Evidence Act), and later the Evidence Act 1938 made some further if cautious reforms. The state of the hearsay rules were regarded as 'absurd' by Lord Reid^[11] and Lord Diplock.^[12]

The Law Commission^[13] and Supreme Court committee^[14] provided a number of reports on hearsay reform, prior to the Civil Evidence Acts 1968 and 1972. These put hearsay on a predominantly statutory basis, including allowing of hearsay by agreement (which came into criminal law in only 2003) and was built upon by the Civil Evidence Act 1995. Criminal reform came in 1988 and 2003.

Reasoning behind the rule

The reasoning process behind the hearsay rule can be seen by comparing the acceptance of direct evidence and hearsay. In adducing direct evidence (that is, recollection of a witness in court) the court will consider how he would have perceived the event at the time, potential ambiguities and the witness's sincerity. These can be tested in cross-examination. A hearsay statement may duplicate each of these uncertainties (firstly for the absent original witness, secondly for the one in court), and cross-examination of the original witness is impossible.

Although the rule is directed only at references to statements asserted for the truth of their contents, the courts were alive to the dangers of circumstantial as well as direct evidence: ^[15]

"the hearsay rule operates in two ways: (a) it forbids using the credit of an absent declarant as the basis of an inference, and (b) it forbids using in the same way the mere evidentiary fact of the statement as having been made under such and such circumstances."

The nature of the genuine danger of allowing a jury to make an inappropriate inference about the nature of such evidence has sometime led to misunderstandings about the nature of hearsay.^[16]

A different rationale can be found in the requirement of justice that the accused is entitled to face his or her opponents. This principle finds support in the European Convention on Human Rights (articles 6(1) and 6(3)(d)) and, in the United States the sixth amendment of its Constitution (its principles tracing back to Raleigh's Trial^[17]). “ECHR” redirects here. ... Amendment VI (the Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution codifies rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. ...

Public documents

Real public documents are generally admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents.^[18]

The rationale was explained in Irish Society v Bishop of Derry^[19] by Parke B (and later extended to foreign governments' records as well^[20]): James Parke, Baron Wensleydale (22 March 1782–25 February 1868) was an English judge, born near Liverpool. ...

"In public documents, made for the information of the Crown, or all the King's subjects who may require the information they contain, the entry by a public officer is presumed to be true when it is made, and it is for that reason receivable in all cases, whether the officer or his successor may be concerned in such cases or not."

Not all public documents will be admissible. Lord Blackburn, in Sturla v Freccia^[19], said he understood

"a public document to mean a document that is made for the purpose of the public making use of it, and being able to refer to it. It is meant to be where there is a judicial or quasi-judicial duty to inquire..."

Essentially, four basic elements apply in determining whether a document is an admissible public record:

• a public duty to inquire and record - the person compiling it must be under a public duty to satisfy himself of the truth of the statement^[21]
• a public matter - this need not necessarily be of concern to the whole of the public; a company's statutory returns in the register qualified as 'public' ^[22]
• retention - the document must have been created for the purpose of being retained and not on a temporary basis^[23]
• public inspection - the document should be available for inspection by the public;^[24]

Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879

An early solution to the common law difficulties of removing business records from their place of business was found in the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, which permitted a copy to be treated as prima facie evidence of the truth of the entry, provided that entry was made in the ordinary course of business, it was in the bank's custody, and the copy and original were compared.^[25] This was extended to include modern forms of information, such as that held on computers.^[26] This rule has been succeeded in practice in criminal cases by s.116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, below.

Res Gestae

Res gestae is based on the belief that because certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously and without deliberation during the course of an event, they leave little room for misunderstanding/misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else (i.e. by the witness who will later repeat the statement to the court) and, thus, the courts believe that such statements carry a high degree of credibility. This article is for the legal term Res Gestae. For the article on the record of the accomplishments of the first Roman emperor, Augustus, see the article for Res Gestae Divi Augusti. ...

Imagine then a young woman standing on the side of a main road (the witness). She sees some commotion across the street. On the immediate opposite end of the road to her she sees an old man shout 'The bank is being robbed!' as a young man runs out of a building and down the street. The old man is never found (so he cannot appear in court and repeat what he said) but the woman repeats what she heard him say. Such a statement would be considered trustworthy for the purpose of admission as evidence because the statement was made concurrently with the event and there is little chance that the witness repeating the hearsay could have misunderstood its meaning or the speaker's intentions.

Admissions by agents

Common enterprise

Expert evidence

Evidence and opinions given by experts in their field which are beyond the knowledge and understanding of the judge and jury to help them with their decision. Expert evidence is not considered hearsay because it does not relate to an out of court statement being offered for its truth.

Possible Hearsays

Image File history File links Hearsay. ...

Civil proceedings

The law concerning hearsay in civil proceedings was reformed substantially by the Civil Evidence Act 1995^[27] ("the 1995 Act") and is now primarily upon upon a statutory footing. The Act arose from a report of the Law Commission published in 1993^[28] which criticised the previous reforming statutes' excessive caution and cumbersome procedures. Section 1 of the Act says

"In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay"

This includes hearsay of multiple degrees (that is, hearsay evidence of hearsay evidence: for example "Jack told me that Jill told me that she went up the hill").

Other provisions of the 1995 Act preserve common law rules relating to public documents, published works of a public nature and public records.^[29] The common law in respect of good and bad character, reputation or family tradition is also preserved.^[30]

The Act moves some of the focus of hearsay evidence to weight, rather than admissibility, setting out considerations in assessing the evidence (set out in summary form):^[31]

• reasonableness of the party calling the evidence to have produced the original maker
• whether the original statement was made at or near the same time as the evidence it mentions
• whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay
• whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters
• whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another, or for a particular purpose
• whether the circumstances of the hearsay evidence suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight

Criminal proceedings

Statutory reform

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("2003 Act"), which was put into force on 4 April 2005, introduced significant reforms to the hearsay rule, implementing (with modifications) the report by the Law Commission in Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics (LC245), published on 19 June 1997. Previously, the Criminal Justice Act 1988 had carved out exceptions to the hearsay rule for unavailable witnesses and business documents. These were consolidated into the 2003 Act. See: WikiCrimeLine Hearsay evidence The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (2003, c. ... The Law Commission is an independent body set up by Parliament in 1965 to keep the law of England and Wales under review and recommend necessary reforms. ... is the 170th day of the year (171st in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... For the band, see 1997 (band). ...

Common law

Section 118 of the 2003 Act preserved the following common law rules and abolished the remainder:

• Public information as evidence of the facts stated therein:
  • published works dealing with matters of a public nature (such as histories, scientific works, dictionaries and maps)
  • public documents (such as public registers, and returns made under public authority with respect to matters of public interest)
  • records (such as the records of certain courts, treaties, Crown grants, pardons and commissions)
  • evidence relating to a person's age or date or place of birth may be given by a person without personal knowledge of the matter
• Reputation as to character - evidence of a person's reputation is admissible for the purpose of proving his good or bad character
• Reputation or family tradition - evidence of reputation or family tradition is admissible to prove or disprove (and only so far as it does so):
  • pedigree or the existence of a marriage (or civil partnership following the Civil Partnership Act 2004)
  • the existence of any public or general right
  • the identity of any person or thing
• Res gestae - statements are admissible if:
  • the statement was made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded,
  • the statement accompanied an act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or
  • the statement relates to a physical sensation or a mental state (such as intention or emotion).
• Confessions - all rules relating to the admissibility of confessions or mixed statements
• Admissions by agents etc as evidence of facts stated:
  • an admission made by an agent of a defendant is admissible against the defendant as evidence of any matter stated, or
  • a statement made by a person to whom a defendant refers a person for information is admissible against the defendant as evidence of any matter stated.
• Common enterprise - a statement made by a party to a common enterprise is admissible against another party to the enterprise
• Expert evidence

The Civil Partnership Act 2004 grants legal status to gay and lesbian couples in the United Kingdom. ...

Statutory rules

Agreement

Hearsay evidence is permitted by agreement between all parties in the proceedings.^[32] No such provision existed before the coming into force of the 2003 Act.

Interests of justice

There are some older cases which threw the rigidities of the hearsay rule into sharp relief. In Sparks v R^[33] a U.S. airman was accused of indecently assaulting a girl just under the age of four. Evidence that the four year old victim (who did not give evidence herself) had told her mother "it was a coloured boy" was held not to be admissible (not being res gestae either) against the defendant, who was white. In R v Blastland^[34] the House of Lords held in a murder case that highly self-incriminating remarks made by a third party, not at the trial, could not admitted in evidence (the remarks mentioning the murder of a boy whose body had not yet been independently discovered).

Under the 2003 Act, any hearsay evidence whether or not covered by another provision may be admitted by the court if it is "in the interests of justice" to do so.^[35] This provision is sometimes known as the "safety valve".

The Act sets out criteria in determining whether the interests of justice test are met though other considerations can be taken into account:

• how much probative value (that is, use in determining the case) the statement has (assuming it to be true), or its value in understanding other evidence
• what other relevant evidence has or can be given
• its importance in the context of the case as a whole
• the circumstances in which the statement was made
• how reliable the maker of the statement appears to be
• how reliable the evidence of the making of the statement appears to be
• whether oral evidence of the matter stated can be given and, if not, why not
• the difficulty involved in challenging the statement
• the extent to which that difficulty would be likely to prejudice the party facing it

Unavailable witnesses

Evidence of a witness may be read in court if he or she is unavailable to attend court.^[36]

In order to be admissible, the evidence referred to would have to have been otherwise admissible, and maker of the statement identified to the court's satisfaction. Additionally, the absent person making the original statement must fall within one of five categories:

• he or she is dead
• he or she is unfit to be a witness because of his bodily or mental condition
• he or she is outside the United Kingdom and it is not reasonably practicable to secure his or her attendance
• he or she cannot be found although such steps as it is reasonably practicable to take to find him or her have been taken
• that through fear he or she does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence in the proceedings, either at all or in connection with the subject matter of the statement

In the case of absence through fear, some additional safeguards are impose prior to the statement's admission. The court must be satisfied it is in the interests of justice, particularly considering the statements contents, whether special measures (screens in court, or video live-link) would assist, and any unfairness to the defendant in not being able to challenge the evidence.

A party to the proceedings (that is, either the prosecution or defence) who causes any of the above five conditions to occur in order to stop a witness giving evidence cannot then adduce the hearsay evidence of it.

The scope of this rule has undergone consideration in cases when much of the prosecution case involves evidence by a witness who is absent from court. In Luca v Italy^[37] it was held that a conviction solely or decisively based upon evidence of witnesses which the accused has had no opportunity to examine breached Article 6 of the Convention (right to a fair trial). However in R v Arnold^[38] it was said this rule would permit of some exceptions, otherwise it would provide a licence to intimidate witnesses - though neither should it be treated as a licence for prosecutors to prevent testing of their case. Each application had to be weighed carefully. “ECHR” redirects here. ...

Business documents

Documents created in the course of a trade, occupation, profession or public office (referred to as "business") can be used as evidence of the facts stated therein.^[39]

To be admissible, the evidence referred to in the document must itself be admissible. The person supplying the information must have had personal knowledge of it (or be reasonably supposed to have had), and everyone else through whom the information was supplied must have also been acting in the course of business.

If the business information was produced in the course of a domestic criminal investigation, then either one of the above five categories (for absent witnesses) must apply, or the person producing the statement cannot be expected now to have any recollection of the original information. A typical example of this is doctor's notes in relation to an injured person, which is then adduced as medical evidence in a criminal trial. Previous criminal records can be adduced (if otherwise admissible) under this section, but not normally any further details about the method of commission, unless it can be demonstrated that the data inputter had the appropriate personal knowledge.^[40]

Previous consistent and inconsistent statements

Sometimes during the testimony of a witness, the witness may be questioned about statements he previously made outside court on an earlier occasion, to demonstrate either that he has been consistent or inconsistent in his account of events. The Act did not change the circumstances in which such statements could become admissible in evidence (which are still prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act 1865), but it did change the evidential effect of such statements once admitted. Formerly, such statements were not evidence of the facts stated in them (unless the witness agreed with them in court): they only proved that the witness had kept his story straight or had changed his story, and so were only evidence of his credibility (or lack of it) as a witness. They were not hearsay. Under the 2003 Act, however, such statements are now themselves evidence of any facts stated in them, not just of credibility, and so are now hearsay. In law and in religion, testimony is a solemn attestation as to the truth of a matter. ...

Supplementary issues

References

1. ^ 10th edition (ISBN 0-406-95004-0)
2. ^ 86 Cr App R 274 at 278
3. ^ [1956] 1 WLR 965, at 969
4. ^ R v Chandrasekera (alias Alisandiri) v R [137] AC 220, [1936] All ER 865, paragraph 17
5. ^ Section 118: Preservation of common law categories of admissibility
6. ^ WikiCrimeLine Hearsay evidence
7. ^ 8th edition (ISBN 0-408-71806-4)
8. ^ 4th edition (ISBN 0-86472-502-7)
9. ^ (1837) 7 Ad & El 313
10. ^ Sugden v Lord St Leonards (1876) 1 PD 154; see also Sturla v Freccia, below
11. ^ ^{a b} [1965] AC 1001 at 1021
12. ^ Jones v Metcalfe [1967] 1 WLR 1286 at 1291
13. ^ 13th Report of the Law Reform Committee Cmnd 2964 (1966), para 11
14. ^ Report of the Committee on Supreme Court practice and procedure, Cmnd 8878 (1953)
15. ^ Thayer, Legal Essays, 1907
16. ^ R v Olisa [1990] Crim LR 721
17. ^ 2 St Tr 15
18. ^ see Phillimore J in Wilton & Co v Phillips (103) 19 TLR 390
19. ^ ^{a b} Irish Society v Bishop of Derry, (1846) 12 Cl & Fin 641; Sturla v Freccia, [1926] Ch 284 at 318
20. ^ Lyell v Kennedy, (1889) App Cas 437 at 448-9 (Lord Selbourne)
21. ^ Doe d France v Andrews (1850) 15 QB 756 (Erle J)
22. ^ R v Halpin [1975] QB 907
23. ^ Heyne v Fischel & Co, (1913) 30 TLR 190; Mercer v Dunne, [1905] 2 Ch 538; White v Taylor, [1969] 1 Ch 150
24. ^ Lilley v Pettit [1946] KB 401, sub nom Pettit v Lilley; see also Thrasyvoulos Ioannou v Papa Christoforos Demetrious [1952] AC 84
25. ^ Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879, s.3 - 5
26. ^ Barker v Wilson[1980] 1 WLR 884; also a new definition clause in s.9, inserted by the Banking Act 1979
27. ^ 1995 c. 38
28. ^ The Hearsay Rule in Civil proceedings (LC216), Cm 2321 (1993)
29. ^ Civil Evidence Act 1995, s.7(2)
30. ^ ibid s.7(3)
31. ^ Civil Evidence Act 1995, s.4(2)
32. ^ Criminal Justice 2003, s.114(1)c)
33. ^ [1964] AC 964, appeal from the Supreme Court of Bermuda
34. ^ [1986] AC 41
35. ^ Criminal Justice 2003, s.114(1)(d)
36. ^ Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.116, formerly in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.23
37. ^ (2003) 26 E.H.R.R. 46, European Court of Human Rights
38. ^ [2004] 6 Archbold News 2, Court of Appeal
39. ^ Criminal Justice Act 2003, s.117, formerly in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, s.24
40. ^ R v Humphris, 169 J.P. 441, Court of Appeal

External links

• Civil Evidence Act 1995
• Criminal Justice Act 2003
• WikiCrimeLine Hearsay evidence