gave a full statement of its limitations: 368, 378, the leading recent Irish case on the subject, Kingsmill Moore J. It is important to note the exact scope of the Rule. If it does, a witness could not testify that he heard someone say 'Hello X' to prove that X was in a particular place. statements or non-verbal conduct which are not intended by their maker to be assertive of theįact they are tendered to prove. There is doubt as to whether the rule applies to implied assertions, i.e.
The rule is applicable to signs, gestures, drawings, charts, photographs as well as to statements in the narrow sense.
Statements excluded by the rule may take many forms, ranging from informal oral remarks to formal written statements or sworn testimony in previous proceedings. Nor could a written statement by the publican to the same effect be adduced. 1976)) Thus, in a trial for drunken driving, a police officer cannot give evidence that X, a publican, told him that he had served the accused with six large whiskies before he got into the car. 1974)) In the latest edition of Phipson on Evidence, the standard practitioners' work, the following statement is given: “Former oral or written statements by any person, whether or not he is a witness in the proceedings, may not be given in evidence if the purpose is to tender them as evidence of the truth of the matters asserted”. Professor Sir Rupert Cross, in his text book on the law of evidence, has offered as a statement of the rule that “a statement other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is (inadmissible as evidence of any fact stated”.
The rule against hearsay is not defined in any statute. THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY CHAPTER 1 THE PRESENT LAW A.
0 kommentar(er)
