Agreement Hearsay

Hearsay is dealt with in Part 3-2. There are several local peculiarities with its treatment. S 59 defines the “fact” of hearsay as “reasonably assumed that the person wanted to assert himself through representation.” The hearsay rule limits the potentially broad number of allegations it could cover by this broad definition of representation to the representations considered only to demonstrate the existence of the alleged facts. In Lee/The Queen[9], the term “representation” was used to apply to statements and behaviour, and was used to encompass all of these statements, or that such behaviour would be transmitted to the observer. In summary, the judge would draw the judge`s attention before a Crown Court jury to the restrictions on hearsay evidence, including that the evidence was not sworn, that it was not able to judge the witness`s deameanur, and that they did not see the evidence examined in cross-examination (i.e. all the reasons why hearsay is generally not permitted at trial). Although the hearsay rule only relates to references to statements that are alleged for the truth of their content, the courts were alive from the dangers of clues and direct evidence:[7] For example, to prove that Tom was in town, the lawyer asks a witness: “What did Susan tell you that Tom was in town?” As the witness` answer is based on Susan`s out-of-court testimony, if Susan is not available for cross-examination, the answer is hearsay. One of the justifications for the objection is that the person who made the statement is not tried and is therefore isolated from cross-examination. Note however that if the lawyer who asks the same question does not seek to prove the truth of the assertion that Tom is in town, but the fact that Susan said the specific words, it may be acceptable. For example, it would be acceptable to ask a witness what Susan told them about Tom in a defamation trial against Susan, because the witness is now being questioned about the testimony of the opposing party, which is a verbal act. [1] [2] The answers to these questions depend on the facts. The same communication will sometimes be hearsay and sometimes not, depending on what it is supposed to prove. One of the reasons for the hearsay rule is that the witness, if not testifying in court, is not subject to cross-examination by the defendant.

The accused has the right to examine the witness`s ability to perceive, his bias or prejudice against the accused and any other case that might cast doubt on the veracity or veracity of the witness`s testimony. The extraordinary s 60 allows the use of a statement as hearsay if it is authorized for a non-hearing purpose, although the application of s 60 by s 137 (which is essentially the discretion formerly known as Christie`s) s 72 may be limited, with the exception of “evidence of a presentation on … the traditional laws and customs of an Aboriginal group or a group of Torres Strait Islanders,” when this would probably have been the exception of common law public law. Confessions are referred to as “approvals” by law (which has led predictably to confusion in which counsel has sought “authorization for approval.”) They are treated separately in Part 3 x 4, which removes the hearsay rule.