DOCSLIB.ORG

Evidence & Objections

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Evidence & Objections Evidence & Objections: Domestic and International Standards EVIDENCE & OBJECTIONS: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS Copyrights 2016 OSCE Mission to Skopje This publication is available in pdf form on the web site of the OSCE Mission to Skopje CIP - Каталогизација во публикација Национална и универзитетска библиотека “Св. Климент Охридски”, Скопје 347.94 EVIDENCE & objections : domestic and international standards / [preface Michael G. Karnavas]. - Skopje : OBSE, 2016. - 86 стр. ; 25 см Содржи и: Annex ISBN 978-608-4788-12-6 а) Кривична постапка - Докази - Приговори COBISS.MK-ID 102199050 Published by OSCE Mission to Skopje Boulevard 8 October, 1000 Skopje http://www.osce.org/skopje Prepared by Michael G. Karnavas Printed by Polyesterday The content of this publication does not necessarily represent the view or the position of the OSCE Mission to Skopje.The Mission adheres to PC.DEC/81. 2 EVIDENCE & OBJECTIONS: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS PREFACE The new Law on Criminal Procedure (hereinafter: LCP) requires defense lawyers to be proactive, especially during the trial proceedings. Being proactive means having an abiding appreciation of certain fundamental evidentiary principles. This is essential in order to make cogent and reasoned arguments as to why certain evidence should be excluded or given limited weight, and why certain evidence shouldbe admitted, especially if all required preconditions are met. During the trial proceedings, these arguments are orally made, and are known as objections. This material on Evidence & Objections is designed to familiarize experienced lawyers trained in the civil law system with the fundamental principles of the law on evidence and evidentiary objections. Michael G. Karnavas 3 EVIDENCE & OBJECTIONS: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS CONTENT Introduction 7 Evidence 11 General principles of evidence 11 Foundational Requirements 12 Witnesses 16 Other types of evidence 23 Privileges 27 Objections 29 General on objections 29 Basic types of objections 32 More on the basic types of objections 34 Annex 1 Application of evidence principles to LCP 45 Annex 2 Basic adversarial principles and skills 61 Case preparation - an overview 61 Checklist for preparing the case for trial 65 Effective use of investigators 67 Opening statement 69 Direct examination 70 Cross - examination 74 Impeachment 77 Examination of expert witnesses 80 Checklist for direct, cross-examination and direct examination 82 Motion practice 84 Closing argument 85 5 6 EVIDENCE & OBJECTIONS: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS old procedure where the judge selected and exhaustively examined the witnesses in INTRODUCTION fulfilling his or her responsibility of getting as close to the truth as possible. The judge continues to be exclusively responsible in Why a material on Evidence & Objections? freely evaluating the evidence according The procedure of the LCP is hybrid: part to his or her conviction obtained from the inquisitorial and part adversarial. It is a entire trial, with the understanding that party-driven procedure, with the parties in case of doubt the evidence should be (prosecution and defense) being involved evaluated in a light most favorable to the in gathering their respective evidence and accused. This new dynamic procedure, putting on their respective cases. however, requires the defense lawyer to be vigilant during the presentation of the The prosecution is independent in choosing evidence. It requires the defense lawyer to whom to investigate, whom to indict, the raise objections on the record concerning evidence it wishes to gather, the manner in the quality of the evidence and the manner which it collects the evidence, the witnesses in which the evidence is being presented; it wishes to speak to, the charges it wishes to hence the need for an appreciation of the include in the indictment, and the evidence principles of evidence and objections. it wishes to present at trial. Likewise, the defense is independent in conducting its But the LCP does not explicitly set out own investigation: which witnesses to speak any evidentiary rules. Nor does it provide to, what evidence to gather, and which a list of objections that may be implicitly witnesses and what evidence to present available in light of the hybrid nature at trial. The judge is neither as active as in of the proceedings. And in the civil law the civil law system, nor as passive as in the tradition, that which is permitted by law or common law system. procedure must be clearly stated in the text. Notwithstanding these limitations, certain During the trial proceedings, the parties are evidentiary principles seem to be applicable expected to lead the evidence by asking to or imbedded in the LCP, thus providing questions. No longer is the defense lawyer a sufficient underpinning for raising and passively sitting and listening to the judge making evidentiary objections during conduct the questioning, waiting to ask a various stages of the proceedings; hence question or two after the prosecution has this training on Evidence & Objections. It followed up on the judge’s questioning. must be emphasised that the evidentiary Now, the defense lawyer is expected to principles does not limit the court in its free engage the witnesses: cross-examining assessment evidence and facts finding. prosecution witnesses (mostly through leading questions), and direct examining Obligations Worth Stressing: Due Diligence defense witnesses (exclusively through & Preserving Errors for the Appeal with a open-ended questions unless the witness is Record. The concept of due diligence deals declared hostile). with the obligations lawyers have toward their clients. This is especially important in These added tools and modalities place the criminal matters, where defense lawyers defense lawyer in a position to meaningfully have a continuing obligation to ensure that participate during the trial proceedings. the client meaningfully enjoys throughout The LCP is much more dynamic than the the proceedings all guaranteed fair trial 7 rights. The defense lawyer’s ability to satisfy The basic rule in making a record is for the the duty of due diligence is paramount to defense lawyer to let the judge know what ensuring that the client receives effective he or she wants, why he or she thinks himself legal representation. or herself entitled to it, and to do so clearly enough for the judge to understand him or Preserving errors during the trial her at a time when the judge is able to do proceedings for the purpose of appeal is something about it. The judge’s function one of the most important due diligence during a trial is to administer justice. One obligations of a defense lawyer. Errors are way this is accomplished is by directing preserved by a thorough record. Simply, the flow of evidence to enable the truth to the record is everything that happens and is emerge (to the extent possible). The judges recorded / documented during the course preside over the trial in order to ensure that of the proceedings, from the investigation fair, honest, truthful, reliable and trustworthy all the way until the final judgement. evidence and testimony is given so that The record consists of: all submissions the case can be decided on that evidence. (motions, responses, replies, etc.), court Consequently, in raising any evidentiary rulings (orders, decisions, and judgments), issues before the court, the defense hearings, the trial itself (transcripts), all counsel’s core argument must always be exhibits admitted in evidence, and exhibits that it will be just or unjust if the court found inadmissible. considers or disregards the introduction of Thus, in order to make a record, defense certain evidence. counsel must conduct a thorough Some Preliminary Thoughts on Evidence investigation to search for evidence (and and Objections. The law of evidence is the properly collect it), make all necessary rules and principles used in proving facts written and oral submissions related to in legal proceedings. In other words, what the law and facts, and make and address evidence may be considered by the judges all relevant evidentiary objections in a in determining the facts of the case being timely and coherent fashion. With a record tried: what evidence should be admitted; that has properly preserved all the errors what evidence should be excluded. during the pre-trial and trial proceedings, a defense lawyer just might be able to The presumption of innocence and the resurrect a client’s case on appeal. The prosecution’s burden are the prism through errors are preserved for appeal when they which admissibility issues in a system with are reflected in the record. A failure to the free evaluation of the evidence should make the record may strip the client of a be viewed. An accused is entitled to a chance to overturn a conviction or preserve presumption of innocence. This presumption an acquittal. As the saying goes: God may places on the prosecution the burden of know, but the record must show. establishing the guilt of the accused by proving beyond a reasonable doubt all The record begins from day one of the the facts and circumstances which are investigations and runs until the rendering material and necessary to constitute the of the final judgement. Any addition to the crimes charged and the accused’s criminal record must be made as soon as possible. responsibility. This means bringing evidence forward as soon as it is discovered, making timely motions, and making timely objections. EVIDENCE & OBJECTIONS: DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS In determining whether the prosecution This material is structured so that the established the guilt of the accused beyond participants will first be introduced to some a reasonable doubt for each count in the general principles of evidence found in indictment, the judge must consider whether adversarial systems. With these principles there is any other reasonable explanation of in mind, the most common objections are the evidence available other than guilt of the discussed – even if not applicable under the accused. Any ambiguity must be resolved LCP.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Examination of Witnesses [PDF]
    CHAPTER 32 JANUARY, 2012 ________________________________________________________ Examination of Witnesses Written by Eric Blumenson Table of Contents: §32.1 A Recommended Sequence for Trial Preparation .................................................... 2 §32.2 The Elements of Credibility ..................................................................................... 2 §32.3 Direct Examination .................................................................................................. 4 A. Choosing and Preparing Witnesses ................................................................... 4 B. Selecting the Areas of Testimony ...................................................................... 4 C. Techniques of Questioning ................................................................................ 5 §32.4 Cross-Examination ................................................................................................... 6 A. Selecting the Areas of Testimony ...................................................................... 6 1. Potential Areas of Cross-Examination ......................................................... 6 2. Narrow the Focus to Reduce the Risks ........................................................ 7 3. Subject Matter to Avoid in Cross-Examination ........................................... 9 B. Techniques of Questioning ................................................................................ 9 Cross-References: Checklists of issues in particular cases, § 11.10 Child witnesses, §§
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Hearsay and Related Topics
    Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS A Consultation Paper LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No 138 The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WClN 2BQ. This Consultation Paper, completed for publication on 11 May 1995, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on this Consultation Paper before 31 October 1995. All correspondence should be addressed to: Ms C Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WClN 2BQ (Tel: 0171- 453 1232) (Fax: 0171- 453 1297) It may be helpful for the Law Commission, either in discussion with others concerned or in any subsequent recommendations, to be able to refer to and attribute comments submitted in response to this Consultation Paper. Any request to treat all, or part, of a response in confidence will, of course, be respected, but if no such request is made the Law Commission will assume that the response is not intended to be confidential. The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 138 Criminal Law EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: HEARSAY AND RELATED TOPICS
    [Show full text]
  • 10.9 the Right to Cross-Examination
    Minnesota Administrative Procedure Chapter 10. Evidence Latest Revision: 2014 10.9 THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION The APA guarantees all parties to a contested case the opportunity to cross- examine: “Every party or agency shall have the right of cross-examination of witnesses who testify, and shall have the right to submit rebuttal evidence.”1 The OAH rules affirm this right2 and extend it to include the right to call an adverse party for cross-examination as part of a party's case in chief.3 In the case of multiple parties, the sequence of cross-examination is determined by the ALJ.4 While application of the right to cross-examine is a simple matter in the case of witnesses who testify, does the existence of this right prevent the use of evidence from witnesses who do not give oral testimony? In short, is it ever proper to receive written evidence5 in contested cases, sworn or unsworn, offered by a party who fails to call the author of the written evidence. In Richardson v. Perales, the United States Supreme Court held that where the written evidence consisted of unsworn statements of medical experts, receipt of the evidence was proper.6 Perales involved a claim for social security disability benefits based on a back injury. At the hearing, Perales offered the oral testimony of a general practitioner who had examined him. The government countered with written medical reports, containing observations and conclusions of four specialists who had examined Perales in connection with his claim at various times.7 The reports were received over several objections by Perales's counsel, including hearsay and lack of an opportunity to cross-examine.
    [Show full text]
  • DNA Fingerprinting: Informed Consent and the Admissibility of Evidence Greg Horton
    DNA Fingerprinting: Informed Consent and the Admissibility of Evidence Greg Horton I: INTRODUCTION All human beings, no matter how varied their appearance, share one basic characteristic: they are built from cells, and in the nucleus of each cell is deoxyribonucleic acid - DNA. Further, the DNA is the same in every cell of the human body. DNA carries the genetic code which determines a person's physical characteristics. Because human beings are generally more similar than different in appearance (that is, for the most part we all have two legs, two arms, a head and a torso), most of our DNA structure is identical. However, approximately one- thousandth of the composition of each person's DNA is unique. Every individual, therefore, except an identical twin, has unique DNA. The existence of this unique DNA structure formed the basis for the develop- ment of a technique which has been described as "the most significant break- through in resolving serious crime since fingerprinting was invented".1 That technique is known as DNA fingerprinting, and it was developed in 1985 by Professor Alec Jeffreys of Leicester University. The essence of the technique is the subjection of a bodily sample, such as blood, semen, saliva, hair, or skin scrapings to a complicated laboratory process.2 This process results in a visualisation on Tande, "DNA Typing: A New Investigatory Tool" [1989] Duke L 474, citing Marshall, "'Genetic Fingerprints' May Catch Killer", LA Times, 11 March 1987, 11. 2 The actual process used is not discussed in this paper but in depth discussions of the technique can be found in most academic articles on the subject of DNA fingerprinting: see for example Kelly, Rankin & Wink, "Method and Applications of DNA Fingerprinting: A Guide for the Non- Scientist" [1987] Crim LR 105.
    [Show full text]
  • The Changing Face of the Rule Against Hearsay in English Law
    The University of Akron IdeaExchange@UAkron Akron Law Review Akron Law Journals July 2015 The hC anging Face of the Rule Against Hearsay in English Law R. A. Clark Please take a moment to share how this work helps you through this survey. Your feedback will be important as we plan further development of our repository. Follow this and additional works at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview Part of the Evidence Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Clark, R. A. (1988) "The hC anging Face of the Rule Against Hearsay in English Law," Akron Law Review: Vol. 21 : Iss. 1 , Article 4. Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol21/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Akron Law Journals at IdeaExchange@UAkron, the institutional repository of The nivU ersity of Akron in Akron, Ohio, USA. It has been accepted for inclusion in Akron Law Review by an authorized administrator of IdeaExchange@UAkron. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Clark: English Rule Against Hearsay THE CHANGING FACE OF THE RULE AGAINST HEARSAY IN ENGLISH LAW by R.A. CLARK* The rule against hearsay has always been surrounded by an aura of mystery and has been treated with excessive reverence by many English judges. Traditionally the English courts have been reluctant to allow any development in the exceptions to this exclusionary rule, regarding hearsay evidence as being so dangerous that even where it appears to be of a high pro- bative calibre it should be excluded at all costs.
    [Show full text]
  • “Real Evidence” Refers to Any Tangible Object Or Sound Recording of a Conversation That Is Offered in Evidence
    11.01. Real Evidence (1) Definition. “Real Evidence” refers to any tangible object or sound recording of a conversation that is offered in evidence. (2) Admissibility. Real evidence is admissible upon a showing that it is relevant to an issue in the proceeding, is what it purports to be, and has not been tampered with. Proof that an object has not been tampered with and is what it purports to be depends on the nature of the object and, in particular, whether the object is “patently identifiable,” or “fungible.” (a) Patently identifiable evidence. When real evidence possesses unique or distinctive characteristics or markings and is not subject to material alteration that is not readily apparent, evidence identifying the object normally will constitute the requisite proof. (b) Fungible evidence. When real evidence is fungible, capable of being altered, contaminated, or replaced, or is a sound recording, in addition to testimony identifying the object, proof that the proffered evidence has not been tampered with is required and may be satisfied by: (i) a “chain of custody” (i.e. testimony of those persons who handled the object or recording from the time it was obtained or recorded to the time it is presented in court to identify the object or recording and attest to its unchanged condition); or (ii) proof of circumstances that provide reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the object or recording. 1 (c) Sound recording. A sound recording of a conversation is admissible: (i) upon testimony of a participant in, or a witness to, the conversation that the recording is unaltered and completely and accurately reproduces the conversation at issue; or (ii) by a combination of testimony of a participant and an expert establishing the completeness, accuracy, and absence of alteration of the recording; or (iii) in addition to evidence concerning the making of the recording and identification of the speakers, by establishing a “chain of custody” (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a ARTICLE IX—AUTHENTICATION Sec. 9-1
    Appendix A ARTICLE IX—AUTHENTICATION Sec. 9-1. Requirement of Authentication (a) Requirement of authentication. The requirement of authentication as a condition precedent to admissibility is satisfied by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the offered evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. (b) Self-authentication. Extrinsic evidence of authenticity as a condition precedent to admissibility is not required if the offered evidence is self-authenticating in accordance with applicable law. COMMENTARY (a) Requirement of authentication. Before an item of evidence may be admitted, there must be a preliminary showing of its genuineness, i.e., that the proffered item of evidence is what its proponent claims it to be. The requirement of authentication applies to all types of evidence, including writings, sound recordings, electronically stored information, real evidence such as a weapon used in the commission of a crime, demonstrative evidence such as a photograph depicting an accident scene, and the like. E.g., State v. Bruno, 236 Conn. 514, 551, 673 A.2d 1117 (1996) (real evidence); Shulman v. Shulman, 150 Conn. 651, 657, 193 A.2d 525 (1963) (documentary evidence); State v. Lorain, 141 Conn. 694, 700–701, 109 A.2d 504 (1954) (sound recordings); Hurlburt v. Bussemey, 101 Conn. 406, 414, 126 A. 273 (1924) (demonstrative evidence). The category of evidence known as electronically stored information can take various forms. It includes, by way of example only, e-mails, Internet website postings, text messages and “chat room” content, computer-stored records, [and] data, metadata and computer generated or enhanced animations and simulations. As with any other form of evidence, a party may use any appropriate method, or combination of methods, described in this Commentary, or any other proof to demonstrate that the proffer is what the proponent claims it to be, to authenticate any particular item of electronically stored information.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence (Real & Demonstrative)
    Evidence (Real & Demonstrative) E. Tyron Brown Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP Atlanta, Georgia 30308 I. TYPES OF EVIDENCE There are four types of evidence in a legal action: A. Testimonial; B. Documentary; C. Real, and; D. Demonstrative. A. TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE Testimonial evidence, which is the most common type of evidence,. is when a witness is called to the witness stand at trial and, under oath, speaks to a jury about what the witness knows about the facts in the case. The witness' testimony occurs through direct examination, meaning the party that calls that witness to the stand asks that person questions, and through cross-examination which is when the opposing side has the chance to cross-examine the witness possibly to bring-out problems and/or conflicts in the testimony the witness gave on direct examination. Another type of testimonial evidence is expert witness testimony. An expert witness is a witness who has special knowledge in a particular area and testifies about the expert's conclusions on a topic. ln order to testify at trial, proposed witnesses must be "competent" meaning: 1. They must be under oath or any similar substitute; 2. They must be knowledgeable about what they are going to testify. This means they must have perceived something with their senses that applies to the case in question; 3. They must have a recollection of what they perceived; and 4. They must be in a position to relate what they communicated 1 Testimonial evidence is one of the only forms of proof that does not need reinforcing evidence for it to be admissible in court.
    [Show full text]
  • Decision on Guidelines for the Admission of Evidence Through Witnesses
    IT -95-5/18-T 35844 UNITED D 35844 - D 35835 19 May 2010 PvK NATIONS International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Case No.: IT-95-51l8-T Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Date: 19 May 2010 Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before: Judge O-Gon Kwon, Presiding Judge Judge Howard Morrison Judge Melville Baird Judge Flavia Lattanzi, Reserve Judge Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Decision of: 19 May 2010 PROSECUTOR v. RADOVAN KARADZIC PUBLIC DECISION ON GUIDELINES FOR THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE THROUGH WITNESSES Office of the Prosecutor Mr. Alan Tieger Ms. Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff The Accused Standby Counsel Mr. Radovan Karadzi6 Mr. Richard Harvey 35843 THIS TRIAL CHAMBER of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 ("Tribunal"), ex proprio motu, issues this decision in relation to the admission of evidence through witnesses. I. Background and Submissions 1. On 6 May 2010, the Presiding Judge informed the parties of general principles that would apply in this case to the admissibility of evidence through a witness and, in accordance with those principles, denied the admission into evidence of a number of documents tendered by the Accused during the cross-examination of the witness Fatima Zaimovi6 on 5 May 2010. 1 2. On 7 May 2010, the Accused's legal advisor, Mr. Peter Robinson, made an oral request to the Chamber to "revisit" the decisions it made on 6 May 2010 denying the admission of several documents tendered during the cross-examination of Fatima Zaimovi6 ("Request,,).
    [Show full text]
  • A Practitioner's Guide to the Management and Use of Expert Witnesses in Washington Civil Litigation
    A Practitioner's Guide To The Management And Use Of Expert Witnesses In Washington Civil Litigation Thomas V Harris* I. INTRODUCTION The Washington litigation process places a premium on the skillful management of expert witnesses.' Testimony presented by such witnesses is both readily admissible2 and virtually unlim- ited in scope. 3 Washington's adoption of the new Rules of Evi- * Partner, Merrick, Hofstedt & Lindsey, Seattle, Washington. A.B., Harvard Col- lege, 1970; J.D., Cornell University, 1973. 1. The same can be said of civil litigation within the federal system or any other jurisdiction that has adopted procedural and evidentiary rules based upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. 2. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Washington have encouraged the use of expert testimony. The court has limited itself to the statement that the trial court has broad discretion to determine whether expert testimony should be admitted. State v. Tatum, 58 Wash. 2d 73, 360 P.2d 754 (1961). A trial court will not be reversed unless it has abused that discretion in ruling upon the competency of a purported expert or in admitting expert testimony where an issue is one of "common knowledge." Ball v. Smith, 87 Wash. 2d 717, 556 P.2d 936 (1976); Poston v. Clinton, 66 Wash. 2d 911, 406 P.2d 623 (1965). In reality, a Washington trial court will virtually never be reversed for admitting expert testimony. Only where an expert is grossly and patently incompetent will the trial court refuse to admit his testimony. In Nelson Equip.
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence in Criminal Investigations
    Evidence in criminal investigations This guidance is based on the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 Version 5.0 Page 1 of 39 Published for Home Office staff on 06 July 2020 Contents Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 About this guidance .................................................................................................... 4 Contacts ................................................................................................................. 4 Publication .............................................................................................................. 4 Changes from last version of this guidance ............................................................ 4 Definition of evidence ................................................................................................. 5 Definition of an exhibit ............................................................................................ 5 Admissibility of evidence ............................................................................................ 7 The ‘res gestae’ rule ............................................................................................... 8 Classifications of evidence ....................................................................................... 10 Direct evidence ........................................................................................................ 11 Circumstantial
    [Show full text]
  • Consultation Paper on Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings
    CONSULTATION PAPER ON HEARSAY IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sub-committee's approach to this topic is to consider the following questions: z whether the shortcomings of the existing hearsay law in criminal proceedings are serious enough to warrant its reform; z if reform is called for, what safeguards are a prerequisite for any reform; z what are the possible options for reform; z whether the proposed model of reform (which consists of a Core Scheme and a series of proposals on special topics) is sufficient to address the most pressing shortcomings of the present law; and z whether the recommendations in the Consultation Paper are compatible with the laws guarding the fundamental rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. Terms of reference 1. In May 2001, the Chief Justice and the Secretary for Justice directed the Law Reform Commission: "To review the law in Hong Kong governing hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings, and to consider and make such recommendations for reforms as may be necessary." 2. A sub-committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the Hon Mr Justice Stock to consider the subject. The consultation paper on "Hearsay in Criminal Proceedings" is the result of the sub-committee's detailed consideration of the subject. The consultation paper sets out the sub-committee’s proposals for reform of the law of hearsay in criminal proceedings and seeks to elicit comment on those proposals. What is "the rule against hearsay"? 3. A simple explanation of the term "hearsay" would be that "when A tells a court what B has told him, that evidence is called hearsay".1 The rule 1 R May, Criminal Evidence (Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd edition, 1995), at 179.
    [Show full text]