The Safety-Valve: Discretion to Admit Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

2012 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-335
Author(s):  
Michael Stockdale ◽  
Emma Piasecki

Section 114(1)(d) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 gave the criminal courts discretion to admit hearsay evidence in the interests of justice. The Law Commission envisaged that the courts would only exercise this inclusionary discretion in exceptional circumstances. Whilst the admissibility threshold created by s. 114(1)(d) is not as high as the Law Commission had intended, the recent jurisprudence suggests that the courts will exercise the s. 114(1)(d) discretion much as the Law Commission had anticipated except that, contrary to the Law Commission's intentions, there is authority for the proposition that where a confession is admitted under s. 114(1)(d) it may be admissible against persons other than its maker and there is also authority for the proposition that the hearsay evidence of a witness who cannot be identified is not admissible under s. 114(1)(d).

2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-254
Author(s):  
Michael Stockdale ◽  
Joanne Clough

The admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales is now governed by provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a result of Law Commission reform proposals. The Law Commission's Report left several issues concerning the admissibility of confessions in the context of its proposed hearsay regime unclear, some of which have not yet been clarified by the post-2003 Act jurisprudence. In particular, whilst the authorities have established that confessions made by third parties may be admissible in exceptional circumstances, the courts have not yet engaged with s. 128(2) of the 2003 Act which limits the extent to which confessions made by defendants may be admissible under the 2003 Act's provisions. Moreover, whilst the Court of Appeal has recognised both that certain confessions may exist outside the 2003 Act's statutory framework and that the admissibility of such a confession for the prosecution when made by a defendant is governed by s. 76 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, other issues concerning the admissibility of such confessions have not yet been resolved.


Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and illustrative diagrams and flow charts. This chapter focuses on the rule against hearsay, which is, historically, one of the great exclusionary rules underlying the law of evidence. In 1997 the Law Commission recommended that hearsay evidence be put on a clearer statutory footing in criminal trials. This eventually led to wholesale reform in the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, which preserves the rule but increases the number of exceptions and safeguards, providing a comprehensive regime for hearsay. The chapter provides an overview of the changes to hearsay introduced by the CJA 2003.


Author(s):  
Maureen Spencer ◽  
John Spencer

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, bullet-pointed answer plans and suggested answers, author commentary and illustrative diagrams and flow charts. This chapter focuses on the rule against hearsay, which is, historically, one of the great exclusionary rules underlying the law of evidence. In 1997 the Law Commission recommended that hearsay evidence be put on a clearer statutory footing in criminal trials. This eventually led to wholesale reform in the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) 2003, which preserves the rule but increases the number of exceptions and safeguards, providing a comprehensive regime for hearsay. The chapter provides an overview of the changes to hearsay introduced by the CJA 2003.


Author(s):  
Richard Glover

Admissions and confessions are the most important common law exceptions to the rule against hearsay. Section 118(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 preserves any rule of law relating to the admissibility of admissions made by agents in criminal proceedings. This chapter is divided into two parts, the first of which discusses admissions, covering the principles of admissibility; what admissions may bind a party; and what may be proved by admission. The second part deals with confessions, covering the admissibility of confessions; the exclusion of confessions; evidence yielded by inadmissible confessions; excluded confessions as relevant non-hearsay evidence; confessions by the mentally handicapped and those otherwise impaired; the Codes of Practice and the discretionary exclusion of confessions; the use of confessions by co-accused; confessions implicating co-accused; and partly adverse (‘mixed’) statements.


Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo

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.


Evidence ◽  
2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo

Chapter 10 begins with a discussion of the relevance of evidence of character. It then deals with the admissibility of character evidence in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil cases, the admissibility of evidence of a party’s bad character is governed simply by the test of relevance. In criminal proceedings, the entitlement of a defendant to a direction on the significance of his or her good character is taken seriously. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 now provides a comprehensive statement of the law on evidence of bad character in criminal proceedings.


2021 ◽  
pp. 262-294
Author(s):  
Andrew L-T Choo

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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 488-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Tombs

The annual total of occupational deaths in the UK is measured in the tens of thousands, yet the overwhelming majority attract no criminal justice attention. More recently, a very small number of deaths have generated attempts to prosecute companies for manslaughter. In 1996, following a series of multiple fatality ‘disasters’, the Law Commission proposed for a new law on corporate manslaughter; in 2008, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 came into force. It is with the implementation and effects of this Act that this article is concerned. It begins by setting out the dimensions of the new law before analysing the key themes that have emerged from its use to date. In conclusion, I consider whether the law has proven to be unfit for purpose—which begs the question of what that purpose might have been.


2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 21-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Graus

This article examines how and why criminal proceedings were brought against alleged cases of Catholic mysticism in several European countries during modernity. In particular, it explores how criminal charges were derived from mystical experiences and shows how these charges were examined inside the courtroom. To bring a lawsuit against supposed mystics, justice systems had to reduce their mysticism to ‘facts’ or actions involving a breach of the law, usually fraud. Such accusations were not the main reason why alleged mystics were taken to court, however. Focusing on three representative examples, in Spain, France and Germany, I argue that ‘mystic trials’ had more to do with specific conflicts between the defendant and the ecclesiastical or secular authorities than with public concern regarding pretence of the supernatural. Criminal courts in Europe approached such cases in a similar way. Just as in ecclesiastical inquiries, during the trials, judges called upon expert testimony to debunk the allegedly supernatural. Once a mystic entered the courtroom, his or her reputation was profoundly affected. Criminal lawsuits had a certain ‘demystifying power’ and were effective in stifling the fervour surrounding the alleged mystics. All in all, mystic trials offer a rich example of the ways in which modern criminal justice dealt with increasing enthusiasm for the supernatural during the 19th century.


2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (6) ◽  
pp. 488-507
Author(s):  
Liz Heffernan ◽  
Mark Coen

The problems associated with the use of expert evidence by the criminal courts have been the subject of ongoing controversy. The Law Commission of England and Wales has recently added its voice to the debate with the publication of a Consultation Paper on the admissibility of expert evidence. This article examines the current law governing the reliability of expert evidence. It analyses the Law Commission's recommendation for the creation of a new statutory rule which would require the trial judge to assess evidentiary reliability as a matter of admissibility. The authors chart the emergence of the US Daubert test, on which the recommendation is based, and consider the lessons to be learned from American experience. While welcoming the recommendation in principle, the authors argue that the crafting and implementation of the proposed admissibility requirement would present formidable challenges.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document