Chapter 10 Multiple Choice Questions

. Which, of the following (if any) are adequate general definitions of hearsay? Please select all that apply.

'Hearsay' is the general name for evidence that is worthless. It may consist of oral or written statements and any other means of conveying information but will be excluded if it is not logically probative of a fact in issue in the proceedings.

An assertion other than one made by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings is inadmissible as evidence of any fact asserted.

Evidence from any witness which consists of what another person stated (whether verbally, in writing, or by any other method of assertion such as a gesture) on any prior occasion, is inadmissible, if its only relevant purpose is to prove that any fact so stated by that person on that prior occasion is true. Such a statement may, however, be admitted for any relevant purpose other than proving the truth of facts stated in it.

Hearsay…is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

. Which of the following is the precise definition of hearsay provided for by s. 1(2) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995?

'hearsay' means a statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated; and references to hearsay include hearsay of whatever degree.

'hearsay' means a statement or other assertion made otherwise than by a person while giving evidence in the proceedings which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated; and references to hearsay include hearsay of whatever degree.

'hearsay' means any statement, whether made orally, by signs or by gestures, by a person while giving evidence in the proceedings which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated; and references to hearsay include hearsay of whatever degree.

'hearsay' means a written statement made by a person outside court which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated therein; and references to hearsay include hearsay of whatever degree.

. 'In civil proceedings, evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay. Therefore, the evidence of all witnesses, (the hearsay evidence of all witnesses (whetehr competent or incompetent to give evidenceons who would be regarded as incompetecompetent and incompetent, is potentially admissible in evidence'.

True

False

. What are the two questions that can help identify if a statement is hearsay or not?

'Was the statement made on a prior occasion?'
'For what purpose or purposes is the evidence tendered?'

'Was the statement made in court proceedings?'
'Was the evidence tendered by the Crown or the defence?'

'Was the statement made on oath?'
'Was the statement made intentionally?'

'Was the statement made in an official capacity?'
'Was the statement only made by inference?'

. What was the significance of the House of Lords' decision in Myers v DPP [1965] AC 1001?

It decided that potentially reliable documents such as the documents in this case, i.e. microfilmed records containing manufacturers' records, were admissible in evidence.

It decided that some documents could also amount to real evidence and, therefore, be admissible as non-hearsay evidence.

The case reiterated that the documents were hearsay but led to legislative provision for the admission of business documents of the same nature as the items in this case.

The case reiterated that the documents were hearsay but no legislative changes were made until the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides the admissibility of such documents by ss. 114(1)(a) and 117.

. Which, of the following are recognised dangers of admitting hearsay evidence? Please select all that apply.

Unreliability, i.e. dangers of concoction and error.

Lack of cross-examination.

The danger of 'manufactured evidence'.

Hearsay is not the best evidence.

. What is 'multiple' hearsay?

It is shorthand for all written statements adduced in court. Every written statement is, in a sense, one remove from the original expression. Therefore, it can be described as 'multiple' hearsay.

It is 'hearsay without hearsay'. That is, it is a statement that is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule. It is without or outside the rule against hearsay and, therefore, is a multiple of the original rule.

It is 'hearsay within hearsay'. That is, it is a hearsay statement that includes a further hearsay statement.

It is the correct description for inadmissible hearsay. All statements that are not covered by statutory exceptions or preserved common law exceptions may be described as 'multiple' hearsay and are inadmissible, often for 'multiple' reasons.

. Robin is charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice. The prosecution wants to adduce evidence of the alibi statement that Robin provided on behalf of his co-defendant to the co-defendant's solicitors. This is hearsay and is only admissible if it falls within one of the established exceptions.

True

False

. The statement 'Will you have any crack tomorrow?' contained in a text message found on the mobile phone of an alleged drug dealer is inadmissible hearsay. This is because it is being adduced in order prove the truth of the fact asserted by the Crown, namely that the owner of the mobile phone sells crack cocaine.

True

False

. The prosecution seeks to admit in evidence the ticket from a football match, which bears the name 'Moore' and the date of the match, in order to establish that Moore was present at the match on that day, which is a relevant fact in issue in the case. Will it be admissible?

The ticket is inadmissible hearsay, as it is being adduced in order to prove the truth of the fact that Moore was at the said football match on the relevant day.

The ticket is inadmissible hearsay, as it is being adduced in order to prove the truth of the fact that Moore booked the ticket for the football match on the relevant day.

The ticket is admissible, non-hearsay, circumstantial evidence that someone using the name 'Moore' was at the said football match on the relevant day. It is evidence that the accused, Moore, was present at the football match on the relevant day.

The ticket is inadmissible hearsay, as it is being adduced in order to prove the truth of the fact that a person with the name of 'Moore' booked the ticket for the football match on the relevant day.

Quiz Content