Crim Evidence Misc.

Rules in relation to a person’s reputation and character, as to character, are admissible for the purpose of proving his good or bad character. This is preserved only insofar as it allows the court to treat such evidence as proving the matter concerned.

Rules of law allowing evidence of reputation or family tradition are admissible for the purpose of proving or disproving pedigree or the existence of a marriage, the existence of public or general rights, the identity of any person or thing. The rule is preserved only insofar as it allows the court to treat such evidence as proving or disproving the matter concerned.

The rules of evidence applicable to so-called res gestae are preserved. Statements made by a person so emotionally overpowered by an event that the possibility of concoction or distortion can be disregarded, statements accompanying the act which can be properly evaluated as evidence only if considered in conjunction with the statement, or statements relating to physical sensations or mental states such as intention or emotion.

The admissibility of admissions and confessions in criminal proceedings is reserved.

Rules relating to admissions by agents, within the scope of their authority, remain admissible as evidence against the person concerned. In criminal proceedings, statements made by persons who are party to a common enterprise are admissible against others to that enterprise as evidence of the matter stated.

The rules in relation to expert evidence are preserved. Expert witnesses may draw on the body of expertise relevant to their field.

Subject to the above, common law rules on hearsay are abolished in criminal cases in Northern Ireland.

Previous statements by witnesses may be admissible as evidence to rebut a suggestion that their oral evidence has been fabricated. That statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by the witness would be admissible.

A statement by a witness in a document that is used to refresh his memory while giving evidence, on which he is cross-examined, and which as a consequence is received in evidence, is admissible as evidence of any other matter stated of which oral evidence by him would be admissible.

A previous statement by a witness is admissible as evidence of any matter stated, of which the oral evidence would be admissible, provided any of the three following conditions are met, and while giving evidence, the witness indicates that to the best of his belief, he made a statement and that he believes its truth.

The first condition is that the statement identifies and describes a person, object, or place. The second condition is that it was made by the witness when the matters stated were fresh in his memory but he does not remember them, and he cannot reasonably be expected to remember them, well enough to give oral evidence of them in the proceedings.

The third condition is that the witness claims to be a person against whom an offence has been committed, the offence is one to which the proceedings relate, the statement consists of a complaint made by the witness whether to a person in authority or not about conduct that would, if proved, constitute the offence or part of the offence, the complaint was made as soon as reasonably possible after the alleged conduct, the complaint was not made as a result of a threat or promise, and before the statement is adduced, the witness gives oral evidence in connection with the subject matter.

The fact that the complaint is elicited by a leading question is irrelevant unless a threat or a promise was involved.

Hearsay is not admissible to prove the fact that an earlier hearsay statement was made unless either of the statements is admissible under the above criteria, all the parties agree, or the court is satisfied that the value of the evidence, taking into account how reliable the statements appear to be, is so high that the interests of justice require the later statement to be admissible for that purpose.

If, on a trial before a judge and jury for an offence, a statement made in a document is admitted under the above provisions, and the document or a copy of it is produced as an exhibit. In that case, the exhibit must not accompany the jury when they retire to consider the verdict unless the court considers it appropriate, or all the parties to the proceedings agree that it should accompany the jury.

Nothing above affects the requirement that a witness have the capacity to make a statement.

Business or official statements are not admissible if the person who must have supplied or received the document concerned did not have the required capability at the time or cannot be identified but cannot be reasonably assumed to have had the required capability. A person is with the required capability if he is capable of understanding the questions about the matter stated and giving answers to such questions as can be understood.

A hearsay statement may be challenged as to credibility in the same way as if the credibility of a witness may be challenged. Evidence may, with the court’s leave, be given of any matter that could have been put in cross-examination as relevant to his credibility but of which evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party; evidence tending to prove that he made inconsistent statements with the admitted statement is admissible for the purpose of showing he contradicted himself.

If as a result of evidence admitted, an allegation is made against the maker of a statement, the court may permit a party to lead additional evidence of such description as the court may specify for the purposes of denying or answering the allegation.

If at any time, in a trial before a judge and jury for an offence, the court is satisfied after the close for the prosecution of the case against the defendant is based wholly or partly on hearsay evidence, and the evidence provided by the statement is so unconvincing that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant, his conviction would be unsafe, the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or order a retrial and discharge the jury. Where a jury is so directed and the defendant could have been found guilty of another offence, the defendant may not be found guilty of that other offence if the court is similarly satisfied in relation to it.

In criminal proceedings, a court has general jurisdiction to refuse to admit a statement of evidence of a matter if the statement was made otherwise than in oral proceedings, and the court is satisfied that the case for excluding the statement, taking account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it, taking account of the value of the evidence.

There are special provisions for expert’s evidence. If a person prepares a statement of which he may reasonably be supposed to have personal knowledge, and notice is given under the court rules that another expert will give evidence orally and base his opinion or inference on the statement, and the notice gives the name of the person who prepared the statement and the nature is stated, the following apply:

• The expert may base an opinion or inference on the statement.
• The statement is to be treated as evidence of what it says.
• The provision does not apply if the court, on an application of a party, orders that it is not in the interests of justice that it applies. In considering the matter, the court may, in deciding whether to so find, consider the expense of calling as a witness the person who prepared the statement; whether relevant evidence could be given by that person, which could not be given by the expert; whether that person can reasonably be expected to remember the matters stated well enough to give oral evidence of them.

The above provisions apply to a statement prepared for the purpose of criminal investigation as they apply to a statement prepared for the purpose of criminal proceedings. In such a case, reference to the proceedings above applies to the investigation.