The common law adopted the position that previous judgments should not be admissible as evidence of the truth of the facts on which they are based, as against strangers to the judgment. However, given the evidential value of previous judgments, the following cases must be distinguished: (a) judgments as evidence of their own existence, content, and legal effect; (b) judgments as evidence of the truth of facts on which they are based, as between the parties to the proceedings in which the judgment was given, and their privies; and (c) judgments as evidence of the truth of facts on which they are based, as between strangers to the proceedings in which the judgment was given, or as between parties to the proceedings (or their privies) and strangers. This chapter discusses cases (a) and (c).
Chapter
16. Previous judgments as evidence
Chapter
9. Corroboration and suspect witness warnings
This chapter discusses the corroboration rule and the practice of suspect witness warnings. It covers the meaning and function of corroboration; the fact that there is no general requirement for corroboration at common law and that a conviction or judgment may be based on the evidence of a single witness; where corroboration is required as a matter of law; the abolition of the rule of practice requiring the judge to direct the jury to exercise caution before convicting in the absence of corroboration; the development of suspect witness warnings; cases in which a suspect witness warning is required; and suspect witness warnings and confirming evidence.
Chapter
13. The rule against hearsay IV
The accused’s denials and silence
The rules applicable to confessions are not necessarily applicable to all statements made by a suspect when confronted with his suspected involvement in an offence, because not all such statements are even partly inculpatory. Two situations are of particular importance: those in which the accused denies the allegations put to him, and those in which he remains silent in the face of the allegations. This chapter discusses the following: the accused’s denials; the accused’s silence at common law; the accused’s failure to mention facts when questioned or charged; the accused’s failure to account for objects, substances, or marks; and the accused’s failure to account for their presence at the scene of the offence.
Chapter
13. Hearsay admissible by statute in civil proceedings
Under the common law rule against hearsay, any assertion, other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, was inadmissible if tendered as evidence of the facts asserted. The Civil Evidence Act 1968 constituted a major assault upon the common law rule in civil proceedings by making provisions for the admissibility of both oral and written hearsay subject to certain conditions. In June 1988 the Civil Justice Review recommended an inquiry by a law reform agency into the usefulness of the hearsay rule in civil proceedings and the machinery for rendering it admissible. The subsequent recommendations of the Law Commission were put into effect by the Civil Evidence Act 1995. This chapter discusses the admissibility of hearsay under the Civil Evidence Act 1995; safeguards; proof of statements contained in documents; evidence formerly admissible at common law; and Ogden tables.
Chapter
14. Hearsay admissible at common law
This chapter considers the following categories of hearsay: statements in public documents; works of reference; evidence of birth, age, and death; evidence of reputation; statements forming part of the res gestae; and statements which are admissions made by an agent of a defendant. All of these categories were established at common law as exceptions to the rule against hearsay, and all of them have been preserved by statute. The categories relating to age and res gestae have been preserved in criminal but not civil proceedings. All of the other categories have been preserved in both criminal and civil proceedings.
Chapter
13. Hearsay admissible by statute in civil proceedings
Under the common law rule against hearsay, any assertion, other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings, was inadmissible if tendered as evidence of the facts asserted. The Civil Evidence Act 1968 constituted a major assault upon the common law rule in civil proceedings by making provisions for the admissibility of both oral and written hearsay subject to certain conditions. In June 1988 the Civil Justice Review recommended an inquiry by a law reform agency into the usefulness of the hearsay rule in civil proceedings and the machinery for rendering it admissible. The subsequent recommendations of the Law Commission were put into effect by the Civil Evidence Act 1995. This chapter discusses the admissibility of hearsay under the Civil Evidence Act 1995; safeguards; proof of statements contained in documents; evidence formerly admissible at common law; and Ogden tables.
Chapter
14. Hearsay admissible at common law
This chapter considers the following categories of hearsay: statements in public documents, works of reference, evidence of birth, age, and death, evidence of reputation, statements forming part of the res gestae, and statements which are admissions made by an agent of a defendant. All of these categories were established at common law as exceptions to the rule against hearsay, and all of them have been preserved by statute. The categories relating to age and res gestae have been preserved in criminal but not civil proceedings. All of the other categories have been preserved in both criminal and civil proceedings.
Chapter
11. Evidence obtained by illegal or unfair means
This chapter discusses the circumstances in which relevant evidence can be excluded, as a matter of law or discretion, on the grounds that it was obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly. The principles for exclusion of evidence are considered, and exclusion in both civil and criminal cases is covered. In respect of civil cases, discretionary exclusion under the civil procedure rules is examined, and in respect of criminal cases, discretionary exclusion at common law and under statute is discussed. The chapter also considers the circumstances in which criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the court’s process, where a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute.
Chapter
11. Evidence obtained by illegal or unfair means
This chapter discusses the circumstances in which relevant evidence can be excluded, as a matter of law or discretion, on the grounds that it was obtained illegally, improperly, or unfairly. The principles for exclusion of evidence are considered, and exclusion in both civil and criminal cases are covered. In respect of civil cases, discretionary exclusion under the civil procedure rules is examined, and in respect of criminal cases, discretionary exclusion at common law and under statute is discussed. The chapter also considers the circumstances in which criminal proceedings should be stayed as an abuse of the court’s process, where a trial would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system and bring it into disrepute.
