Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Law, Monash University, Australia
Abstract
Using comparative material from other common-law jurisdictions and Scotland, it is argued that two leading decisions of the House of Lords on the scope of the hearsay rule are erroneous. In R v Kearley, the House held that telephone requests by unknown persons for drugs made to the accused were inadmissible hearsay. In Blastland, on an appeal against a murder conviction, the House held that statements by a third person indicating that he knew of the victim's death before it became public knowledge were inadmissible. It is noted that the reform of hearsay in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 may have an impact on both rules, but it is submitted that this should not obscure the fundamental errors underpinning these decisions revealed by recourse to better reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions.
Subject
Law,Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference78 articles.
1. [2003] EWCA Crim 502. The accused’s reactions at the time of the receipt of the calls were, however, admissible: the accused attempted to inform the callers, by shouting towards the telephone, that they were talking to the police rather than him.
2. [1992] 2 AC 228.
3. For an earlier attempt to debunkKearleyon historical/precedential lines, see S. H. C. Wong, ‘The Common Law on Implied Assertions Re-Considered:WrightvTatham
4. [1986] AC 41.
5. M. Hirst, ‘Conduct, Relevance and the Hearsay Rule’ (1993) 13Legal Studies54, 62 contains a handy overview of the differences.