Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Two English Hearsay Heresies

Bibliographic Data

ID12596144
AuthorsGreg Taylor (0000-0002-4563-4862, Monash University, corresponding author)
Year2005
Volume9
Issue2
Pages110-125
Publication date2005-03-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe International Journal of Evidence & Proof (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1365-7127 • E-ISSN: 1740-5572
PublisherSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1350/ijep.9.2.110.64808
OpenAlexW2117542157
LanguageEN

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

Adversarial system · Appeal · Conviction · Criminal justice · Hearsay · Political science · Scope (computer science · Underpinning · Computer Science · Engineering · Law · Legal principles and applications · Psychology

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae