Affiliation:
1. LLB (Lon), LLM (Lon), Gray's Inn, Coventry University, UK
Abstract
The claims for the restitution of legal estate by the Indigenous peoples are often without the benefit of a written agreement when they have to prove a spatial and temporal connection with ancestral lands. The witness testimony from a storyteller who is keeper of the historical records is in the absence of documentary evidence and the court has to be convinced of the probative value of the evidence before the oral testimony is admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. This presents immense obstacles to Indigenous litigants, who are governed by customary laws and whose narratives regarding the claims on land are conveyed intergenerationally. The court structures based on common law exclude such evidence as hearsay, which has prevented claims on land in North America, and in Norway, which has a Eurocentric court structure. There is a need for a framework in the procedural codes of the common law courts and by extension of all courts where Indigenous people own lands or exercise rights over them to formalise the reception theory of evidence. This will contextualise the terminologies, expressions and idioms that are included in Indigenous story testimony and their authenticity can be framed in protocols which courts could resource before ruling whether the narrative testimony is admissible.
Subject
Law,Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Sociology and Political Science
Reference53 articles.
1. Borrows J (1999) Sovereignty's alchemy: An analysis of Delgamuukw v. British Columbia.Osgoode Hall Law Journal37(3): 537–596.
2. Broun KS (ed) (2006)McCormick on Evidence. 6th ed. St Paul, MN: West.
3. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2010)Indigenous and Tribal Peoples’ Rights over Their Ancestral Lands and Natural Resources: Norms and Jurisprudence of the Inter-American Human Rights System. Document 56/09. Available at: https://www.oas.org/en/iachr/indigenous/docs/pdf/ancestrallands.pdf (accessed 22 February 2023).
4. The Indian Claims Commission Act
5. McMillan JL (2011) Colonial traditions, co-optations, and Mi’kmaq legal consciousness.Law & Social Inquiry36(1): 171–200.