Hearsay Exceptions
The general hearsay rule at common law states that a person can only give evidence of matters they saw or observed personally. A statement made by another person outside of Court is generally not admissible as evidence of its content’s truth. However, such statements can often be relevant for other reasons. In many instances, statements have legal effect (such as in contract cases) regardless of their truth.
Exceptions to common law rules about hearsay persist, encompassing statements constituting facts in issue, declarations against interest, and admissions by a party adverse to their interests. Declarations made regarding duty, family relationships, and pedigree are also admissible.
The common law exceptions to the hearsay evidence rule still apply. Many of these are not true exceptions. They include the following:
Words that form part of the transaction concerned. Words constituting facts in issue and words accompanying acts, abuse are admissible as they are not offered as proof of their content. Words indicating mind, motive, mood, intention, health symptoms, age, state of knowledge and belief may be admissible. Words contemporaneous with the event or so close in time that there was no time to concoct a falsehood are admissible statements at common law.
Admissions by a party proved in evidence are admissible against him where they are adverse to his interests. Failure to respond may be treated as an admission where the parties were on equal terms and a response would be expected.
A statement made in the presence of a party or witness, if proved by evidence otherwise admissible is allowed.
Statements made by deceased persons in relation to certain matters are admissible such as
declarations against interest,
declarations made in the course of duty,
declarations by public rights, family relationships and pedigree,
statements in public records,
examined copies of bank books, entries in the course of banks or building society of the books .
Documentary Evidence
If an agreement or legal act has been put in writing, the document is generally itself the only evidence of the transaction. This only applies where the document constitutes the transaction rather than being a receipt or invoice. Evidence is not generally admissible to interpret a document so as to contradict its clear meaning or words.
Some documents such as deeds and wills must be proved to have been executed.
Generally a document is proved by production of the original and identification by a witness. A party may prove authenticity of a document by a witness giving evidence that it is what it purports to be. Alternatively this may be admitted.
It may be proved by the author or by calling a handwriting expert and comparing admitted general specimens. Handwriting can be proved by any lay person familiar with the author’s handwriting.
Hearsay contents of computer records are admissible upon production of certificate that the computer is properly working and in order.
Certain documentary evidence, particularly firsthand records compiled by a duty-bound person, is admissible. However, specific notice and reasons must be provided if appealing against these rules.
Computer records and their certified proper functionality find admissibility under specific legislation.
Documents may be proven by their contents or through a witness testifying to their authenticity. Handwriting can be verified by comparing specimens or by a layperson familiar with the author’s script. Statements in a document are admissible as evidence in civil proceedings.
Documents forming part of business or public authority records may be received without further proof by presenting a certificate signed by the responsible officer.
Certain documents, such as deeds and wills, necessitate proof of their execution. Evolving rules permit the presentation of copies or authenticated parts without the original document.
Real evidence, including photographs, film, or audiovisual recordings, may be admissible if relevant to the case, regardless of whether the person who captured them testifies.”
Prior Consistent Evidence Allowed
The common law rule that a person made a previous consistent statement was reformed changed so that such evidence is admissible. The previous statement of the person giving evidence is admissible.
If the person calling the witness wants to adduce the statement it is admissible
- by leave of Court
- or to rebut a suggestion of fabrication or
- if it is used to refresh memory and the other side’s counsel has cross-examined him on parts not used.
A previous inconsistent statement may be put in cross-examination. It may be put in examination in chief, if the witness has been declared hostile.
Revised legislation now permits the admission of a previous consistent statement from a person testifying. Conversely, a previous inconsistent statement can be presented during cross-examination or main examination if the individual is declared hostile.