The provisions of the rumors of the 2003 Criminal Justice Act reform the common law relating to the receipt of evidence of rumors in criminal proceedings beginning on or after April 4, 2005.
Article 114 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines evidence of rumors as statements not made in oral evidence in criminal proceedings and accepted as evidence of any matter stated but only if certain conditions are met, in particular where:
- It is for justice to recognize it (see section 114 (1) (d))
- The witness can not be present (see section 116)
- The evidence is in the document (see section 117)
- The proof is multiple hearsay (see section 121)
The meaning of "statements" and "material stated" is described in section 115 of the 2003 Act. "Oral evidence" is defined in section 134 (1) of the Act.
Video Hearsay in English law
Sejarah aturan
Rumor rules began to form correctly in the late seventeenth century and were fully established in the early nineteenth century. The problem is analyzed substantially in Wright v Doe d Tatham . The technical nature of the discussions at Doe d Tatham hampered many reasons for the progress of the law, whose progress (in the form of judicial capacity to improve it) ended shortly thereafter. Then attempts to reform through the common law got a bit further, with Lord Reid at Myers v DPP saying
If we extend the law it must be with the development and application of the basic principles. We can not introduce arbitrary conditions or limitations; which should be submitted to the law: and if we do change the law, we must in my opinion only to do that in cases where our decisions will produce some certainty or certainty. If we ignore the technicalities in this case and try to apply principles and common sense, there are some parts of the existing law of rumors that are vulnerable to equal treatment,... The only satisfactory solution is by law which follows a broad survey of the entire field... The policy of creating and correcting is not appropriate.
There have been some legal reforms in the nineteenth century (see Proof of Proof of the Banker's Banker 1879), and then the Proof of Act 1938 made much further if the reforms were cautious. The state of the rumor was considered 'unreasonable' by Lord Reid and Lord Diplock.
The Law Commission and the Supreme Court committee provided a number of reports on rumor reform, prior to the Civil Proof Law of 1968 and 1972.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 ("2003 Act"), which came into force on 4 April 2005, introduced significant reforms to the rumor rule, executing (by modification) a report by the Law Commission in Evidence in the Criminal Process: Hearsay and Related Topics (LC245 ), published on June 19, 1997. Previously, the 1988 Criminal Justice Act carved an exception to the rule of rumor for unavailable witnesses and business documents. This is consolidated into the Act of 2003.
Maps Hearsay in English law
The reason behind the rule
The reasons behind the rule of rumor can be seen by comparing the acceptance of direct evidence and rumors. Direct evidence is given under oath (with potential criminal liability for perjury if the testimony is later proved wrong), before the court and jury, and may be cross-examined. In adding direct evidence (ie, recalling a witness in court) the court considered how the witness would sense the event at the time, the potential for ambiguity, and the seriousness of the witness. This can be tested in cross-examination.
A statement reported in the rumor is generally not subject to this protection. The person making the original statement does not testify under oath, and is not subject to cross examination. Even with the assumption that the witness who reported the original statement was completely honest, it is still possible that the person making the original statement is lying, joking, or exaggerating. It is also possible that the witness who testified at the trial misunderstood the original statement. The court has no way of assessing these possibilities, except through the testimony of witnesses reporting the rumors.
Although the rules of the rumor are directed only to the reference of affirmed statements to the truth of the contents, the court remains alive against indirect hazards as well as direct evidence:
Rule of rumors operates in two ways: (a) prohibits the use of credit from non-existent declarations as the basis of inference, and (b) prohibits the use in the same way as the facts of proof of statements made under such circumstances.
The nature of the original danger that allowed the jury to make inaccurate conclusions about the nature of such evidence has led to a misunderstanding of the nature of the rumor.
Different reasons can be found in the requirements of justice that the defendant has the right to face his opponents. This principle finds support in the European Convention on Human Rights (art 6 (1) and 6 (3) (d)) and, in the United States the sixth amendment of the Constitution (its principles traces back to the Raleigh Court ).
Civil process
Hearsay is generally acceptable in civil processes. This is one area where English law differs dramatically from American law; under the Federal Rules of Evidence, used in US federal courts and followed practically word for word in almost all states, rumors are unacceptable in criminal and civil courts, except for recognized exceptions.
The law on rumors in civil litigation was substantially reformed by the Civil Provisions Act 1995 ("Act 1995") and is now primarily based on legal grounds. The law emerged from the report of the Law Commission published in 1993 that criticized earlier, too cautious reform laws and complicated procedures. Part 1 of the Law says
In the documents of a civil event will not be excluded on the grounds that it is a rumor
This includes rumors of several levels (ie, evidence of rumors of evidence of rumors: eg "Jack told me that Jill told him he was climbing up the hill").
Other provisions of the 1995 Act preserve common law rules relating to public documents, published public works and public records. Common law with respect to good, bad character, reputation or family tradition is also preserved.
The law shifts some of the focus from evidence of rumor to weight, rather than accepted, establishes judgment in assessing evidence (set out in summary form):
- It is natural for the party to call the proof to generate the original creator
- Whether the original statement was made at or near the same time as the evidence it mentions
- Whether the evidence involves a lot of hearsay
- Has anyone involved has a motive for hiding or misrepresenting things
- Whether the original statement is an edited account, or created in collaboration with another, or for a specific purpose
- Does the proof state of the rumor indicate an attempt to prevent a proper evaluation of its weight
The crime process
Statutory definition
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 defines rumors as a statement "not made in verbal evidence in the process" used "as evidence of every thing stated".
General rules
Legal exception
A witness's testimony can be read in court if the witness is not present to attend.
In order to be accepted, evidence must be declared acceptable, and the statement-maker is identified for court satisfaction. In addition, people who are not present make original statements should be included in one of five categories - they are:
- Off
- Not worthy to be a witness due to physical or mental condition
- Outside the UK and not practical to ensure their presence
- Can not be found, and reasonable practical steps to find it have been retrieved
- Fear to testify or continue to testify
In the case of absence through fear, additional protection is imposed before the statement is received. The court must be satisfied that it is for the sake of justice, especially given the content of the statement, whether a special action (screen in court, or live-link video) will help, and injustice to the defendant as it can not defy evidence.
A party to the proceeding (ie, prosecution or defense) that causes any of the above five conditions to occur to stop a witness from providing evidence, and then unable to add proof of that rumor.
The scope of this rule has been considered in cases where many prosecution cases involve evidence by witnesses not present in court. In Luca v Italy (2003), in the European Court of Human Rights, it is stated that the sole or strict conviction based on evidence from witnesses of defendants has no opportunity to examine Article 6 violations of the Convention (the right to fair trial). In the High Court, however, it says that this rule will allow some exceptions, otherwise it will grant a license to intimidate witnesses - although it should not be treated as a license for prosecutors to prevent case testing they. Every application should be weighed carefully.
Business documents
Documents made in the course of trade, employment, profession or public office (referred to as "business") may be used as evidence of facts expressed therein.
In order to be accepted, the evidence mentioned in the document itself must be accepted. The person supplying the information must have personal knowledge about it (or should reasonably have it), and the other person through whom the information is provided has also acted on a business trip.
If business information is generated in a domestic criminal investigation, then any of the above five categories (for absentee witnesses) should apply, or the person making the statement can not be expected now to have a memory of the original information. A typical example of this is the doctor's record in relation to the wounded person, which is then added as medical evidence in a criminal trial. Previous criminal records may be presented (if unacceptable) under this section, but usually there is no further details about the commission method, unless it can be shown that the input data has appropriate personal knowledge.
Consistent and inconsistent statements
Sometimes during the testimony of a witness, a witness can be questioned about a statement that he previously presented outside the court on a previous occasion, to indicate whether he is consistent or inconsistent in his report on events. The law does not change the circumstances in which such statements are acceptable in the evidence (which is still prescribed in the Criminal Procedure Act of 1865), but that changes the effect of evidence of such a statement once received. Previously, such statements were not evidence of facts expressed in them (unless the witness agreed with them in court): they merely proved that the witness had kept the story straight or changed his story, and so did his credibility (or lack thereof) evidence as a witness. They are not a rumor. However, under the 2003 Act, such statements are now proof of any facts expressed in them, not just credibility, and so are now rumors.
Maintaining common law exceptions
Section 118 of the 2003 Act preserves the following common law rules and removes the remainder:
- Public information as evidence of the facts stated therein:
- published works relate to things that are public (such as history, scientific papers, dictionaries and maps)
- public documents (such as public registers, and results created under public authority with respect to matters of public interest)
- records (such as certain court records, agreements, Crown grants, pardons and commissions)
- evidence relating to a person's age or date or place of birth may be provided by a person without personal knowledge of the matter
- Character reputation - a person's reputation proof is acceptable for the purpose of proving good or bad characters
- Family reputation or tradition - proof of reputation or family tradition can be proven or disproved (and only so far):
- genealogy or existence of marriage (or civil partnership after Civil Partnership Act 2004)
- the existence of public or public rights
- the identity of any people or objects
- Res gestae - statement can be accepted if:
- The statement is made by someone who is emotionally controlled by an event that the possibility of herb or distortion is negligible,
- the statement accompanied by action which can be evaluated properly as evidence only if it is considered simultaneously with the statement, or
- statements relating to physical sensations or mental states (such as intent or emotion).
- Confessions - all rules relating to acceptance of recognition or mixed statements
- Acceptance by agent etc. as evidence of fact states:
- the acknowledgment made by the defendant's agent may be accepted by the defendant as evidence of a problem, or
- a statement made by a person to whom the defendant referred a person to the information is acceptable to the defendant as evidence of a problem.
- Public enterprise - statements made by one party to a public company may be accepted against another for the enterprise
- Expert proof
Agreement
Audible evidence is permitted by agreement between all parties in the process. There is no such provision before the enactment of the 2003 Law.
Justice interests
There are some old cases that throw the stiffness of the rumor rule into a sharp relief. In Sparks v R an American pilot was accused of indecent attacking a girl just under the age of four. Evidence that a four-year-old victim (who did not provide proof of his own) had told his mother "it was a colored boy" was held not to be accepted (not being res the gestae too) against the white defendant.
In the House of Lords' ry Blastland (1986) House of Lords held in cases of murder which self-incriminating statements made by a third party, not in court, are unacceptable as evidence (statements mentioning the murder of a child whose body has not been found independently).
Under the 2003 Act, evidence of whether or not a rumor is covered by other provisions may be accepted by the court if it is "in the interest of justice" to do so. This provision is sometimes known as a "safety valve".
The law sets the criteria for determining whether the interests of the justice test are met, and considering other relevant factors:
- How many probative values ​​(ie, use in determining cases) the statement (assuming it is true), or its value in understanding other evidence;
- What other relevant evidence has been or can be given;
- Importance in the context of the case as a whole;
- The state in which the statement was made;
- How reliable the statement maker seems;
- How reliable is the evidence in the statement apparently;
- Whether oral evidence can be given and, if not, why not;
- Difficulties involved in challenging statements;
- The extent of the difficulty will hurt the side facing it.
References
External links
- Civil Evidence Act 1995
- Criminal Justice Act 2003: as authorized, as amended.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments