Hearsay Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Admissibility and Exceptions

Running head: EVIDENCE LAW
Evidence Law
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1EVIDENCE LAW
The law related to Hearsay evidence under the Law of Evidence is complex. It refers
to the oral or written evidence or statement that is given out by a person not testifying on
oath, but it is relied by a court of law for the purpose of a proceeding. For example, in a
murder trial, a witness states that he heard that the accused was not in the crime scene but at
some place else, would be a hearsay evidence if it is accepted by the court as it is not proven
by factual or circumstantial evidence, but by the word of mouth of a person who was not
present at the crime scene personally and is only making the statement on presumption. The
rules pertaining to the admissibility of hearsay evidence in case of criminal and civil cases are
different. A hearsay evidence can be identified by the following conditions: a) whether the
statement was made outside the proceedings of the court by a person who is not a witness of
the trial; and b) whether the intention of the person making the statement was to make the
court or another person believe in it and act accordingly as if it was true. If both the condition
are proved to be right, then these are hearsay evidence and it would be upon the discretion of
the court whether to allow them or not. This paper critically analyse the position of hearsay
evidence in context to a criminal proceeding; whether it is admissible in the court of law or it
is rejected for being presumptuous. The researcher strives to put forward that although there
are various judgements that rejects the validity of hearsay evidence; however, it bears many
exceptions that allow the admission of this particular form of evidence.
As argued in the case of R v Kearley, hearsay evidence is an assertion made by
anyone other than a person who gives oral statement in a proceeding, which is inadmissible
as an evidence1. The rule to make a hearsay evidence admissible depends on the
determination of the purpose of which the statement or the evidence was laid down. A
hearsay evidence would be admissible when its object is to establish the truth in context to
the statement made. However, as argued in the case of Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor, the
object of the hearsay evidence is to establish the truth that such a statement was made and not
1 R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228

2EVIDENCE LAW
to prove the fact of the statement2. The case of R v Kearley argues that hearsay evidence
speaks for both assertions made by people who gives oral evidence under oath in a court of
law and also those who do not3. The rule as stated in the above-mentioned case also covers
‘implied assertion’. The rule of hearsay evidence lays down the following conditions where
hearsay evidence is admissible unless they fall under its exception categories: a) the witness
must lay down an oral statement which cannot be substituted by a written statement; b) The
statement of the witness must be from his first-hand knowledge and not a repetition of a
previously shared information; c) The statement shared are otherwise inadmissible evidence;
and d) When a witness gives oral statement, his previous statement is not counted in that
case.
In the case of Myers v. DPP, Lord Reid suggested a statutory review of the law of
hearsay evidence4. Additionally, the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1972
recommended major changes in its Evidence Report5. In 1986 the issue of hearsay evidence
was extended and examined by the Roskill Committee when it was recommended that
documents for a criminal proceeding Elysium fraud should speak for itself and should be
admissible irrespective of further proof. With the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, the
matter of hearsay evidence was partially discussed by the new legislation6. The Criminal
Justice Act 1988 limits itself to hearsay statements that are contained in a document, however
the words statement and document has been widely defined in the Act which broadens the
horizon of the application of Hearsay evidence. Section 23 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988
lays down a statutory exception which says that hearsay evidence must be the first hand
evidence only7. The Act states that when a person give the statement on a document, it would
2 Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965
3 R v Kearley [1992] 2 AC 228
4 Myers v. DPP [1965] AC 100
5 Wells, Celia. "Criminal Law Revision Committee, 14th Report: Offences against the Person: Homicide." Mod.
L. Rev. 43 (1980): 681.
6 Criminal Justice Act 1988
7 Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 23