Monday, March 18, 2019

Law of Evidence: R v Kearley Essay -- Papers

Law of bear witness R v Kearley Essentially this piece concerns whether the kin of schoolmasters correctly inflexible the case of R v Kearley1. The majority decided allowing the appeal, that the evidence concerned in this case was either irrelevant, and therefore impermissible (unless part of the res gestae) or was inadmissible as hearsay in the form of an implied assertion. The facts of Kearley will be discussed, followed by an analysis of the decision by their Lordships, finally considering the issues of relevance and implied assertions in relation to the decision in Kearley. The facts of Kearley atomic number 18 well known. The disputed evidence was that the police officers whilst on the raid answered a number of callers to the flats, both by telephone and by visitors. The police officers testified that the callers were seeking to buy drugs in place of the original callers who were unwilling or futile to attend court. The appellant objected to the evidence on the ground that it was hearsay, merely this was overruled. The butterfly of Appeal dismissed his appeal and certified a question to the tolerate of Lords. Condensing the certified question, it was whether a person not called as a witness, for the purpose of not establishing the truth of any fact narrated by the words, but of inviting the jury to draw an inference from the fact that the words were spoken ? 2 On the issue of relevancy, Lord Ackner for the majority considered that each request was evidence of the demesne of mind of the person making the request, and that was an irrelevant issue in the trial. This was back up by Lords Bridge and Oliver. It should be noted though that Lord Bridge f... ...1986 86 Cr App R 105 15 DPP v Kilbourne 1973 AC 726 per Lord Simon at P756 16 1993 13 Legal Studies 54, 65 17 Law of Evidence (1999) Page 528 18 1993 56 MLR 138, 146 19 Per Lord Griffiths in Kearley at Page 348 20 1993 CLJ 40, 41 21 ibid no. 19 22 The Modern Law of Evidence (4th Edition) (Butterworths) 23 Wright v vigour D Tatham (1837) and Teper v R (1952) 24 1993 13 Legal Studies 54 59 25 1993 56 MLR 138, 140 26 Law of Evidence (1999) 27 1992 NLJ 1194, 1194 28 1993 56 MLR 138, 148 29 1993 56 MLR 138, 151-152 30 1994 cx LQR 431, 438 31 Report No. 245 Evidence in Criminal Proceedings and link Topics (1997) 32 Pattenden, Rein - (modified version though), and Cross 33 1993 CLJ 40, 42

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.