Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
The hearsay ought to be abolished. It exceptions are complex and lead to arbitrary exclusion of cogent evidence. Discuss.
Member rating:
(1 vote)
| Words:
| Submitted: Thu Mar 15 2007
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
'The hearsay ought to be abolished. It exceptions are complex and lead to arbitrary exclusion of cogent evidence. Discuss. hearsay and its associated rule which prevents adducing hearsay statements as evidence. In simple terms, this is a rule aimed at preventing a court from using second-hand evidence - a witness should not be permitted to tell the court about matters which they have heard about from other people. It is those 'other people' who are the 'proper' witnesses and who should be called to the court to testify. The classic statement of the rule was formulated by Cross, an assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact stated1 It is a definition which is echoed by section 1 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 which abolished the rule in civil proceedings so that evidence cannot now be excluded...
To see the full version of this document, and 143,651 others
