Legal Evidence Chapter 12

A written statement signed by a witness, containing evidence they would give in court. It must be verified with a statement of truth and include only admissible, relevant facts.

A statement by a person that a statement in a document is true to the best of their knowledge and belief.

A witness statement must only include evidence that would be allowed in court, excluding personal opinions or irrelevant information.

Witness statements should avoid including unnecessary information, focusing solely on facts relevant to the case.

A witness statement must follow specific rules and formats set by the court.

Witness statements serve as the main evidence from a witness, presented in their own words.

Witness statements should only include evidence relevant to the specific issues raised by the party who provided the statement.

Witness statements should be concise and clear, avoiding long paragraphs or extra details.

A statement made out of court, offered as evidence to prove the truth of the statement. This is usually not allowed in court.

A statement made out of court offered as evidence for a different purpose than proving the truth of the statement.

A statement made out of court offered as evidence to show that the statement itself was made, regardless of whether it's true.

The effect that someone's statement had on another person's state of mind.

When a witness repeats what someone said out of court to prove that the statement was made, not to prove the truth of the statement itself.

When a witness repeats what someone said out of court to show the impact that statement had on someone's state of mind.

When a witness repeats what someone said out of court to demonstrate the speaker's opinion or perception of an event.

A statement made by a witness, but not in court, that can be admissible in court.

Evidence given by someone who shares what they heard from another person, rather than their own direct knowledge.

Hearsay evidence that is directly from the source (the original speaker).

Hearsay evidence that is passed down through multiple people (like a game of telephone).

A witness who provides evidence of what they saw, heard, or experienced.

A witness who shares their personal opinion or interpretation of events, which is usually not allowed in court.

Evidence that is relevant to the case being tried and can be presented in court.

Evidence that is not allowed in court, such as opinions or irrelevant information.

The Civil Evidence Act 1995 allows the use of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings. This means that evidence that is not directly observed can still be used.

Hearsay evidence is not admissible in court if the person making the original statement was mentally or physically incapable of understanding or giving evidence.

When a party relies on hearsay, the opposing party can try to compel the speaker of the original hearsay statement to appear in court for cross-examination.

Even if the person who made the original statement is not present in court, you can still present evidence to attack or support their credibility or show inconsistencies in their statements.

The Civil Evidence Act 1995, Section 4, allows judges to assign less weight to hearsay evidence, protecting the defendant from unfair disadvantage.

A legal principle that, in certain cases, a party can force their opponent to appear at trial for cross-examination to clarify the basis of hearsay evidence they are relying on.

The legal decision in Brown v Mujibal, related to compelling someone to testify about their own hearsay statement, was differentiated and doubted by the later decision in G v Hassan.

The decision in Brown v. Mujibal was considered irrelevant to the case of G v Hassan because in Brown, the claimant's competence was in dispute. But in G v Hassan, the expert opinion was clear on this matter.

A party relying on hearsay evidence may face challenges in court due to the potential for weak evidence and the possibility of an opposing party compelling them to appear and testify.

A prior statement that contradicts a witness's current testimony in court. This statement can be used to challenge the witness's credibility.

The Civil Evidence Act 1995 regulates the use of hearsay evidence, including previous inconsistent statements. If the opposing party wants to use this type of evidence, they must follow the Act's requirements.

A witness statement, if exchanged according to court rules, can be used as their main evidence in court. The witness will still be present for cross-examination.

The court may allow the use of a previous inconsistent statement to challenge a witness's credibility, but its content might not be accepted as proof of what happened.

If a party wants to use a previous inconsistent statement as evidence, they must usually get permission from the court or the other party.

If the court finds that a previous inconsistent statement was actually made, it might affect the witness's credibility, but the statement itself may not be considered true evidence.

If a party wants to use new evidence, like a previous inconsistent statement, they should apply to the court for permission, ideally at a pre-trial review.

When a party wants to use a previous inconsistent statement that wasn't in the initial witness statement, they can request permission to serve a supplemental statement covering this new evidence.

The Civil Evidence Act 1972 allows expert opinions to be admissible in court proceedings if the expert is qualified to give evidence on the relevant matter.

Rule 35.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) states that an expert's duty is to assist the court, overriding any obligation to the party who instructed them.

Practice Direction 35 emphasizes that expert evidence should be independent and unbiased, not influenced by litigation pressure.

CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35 underscore that experts must only provide evidence within their area of expertise.

Experts may need to conduct further research to enhance their existing knowledge to provide relevant assistance to the court.

It's crucial for experts to make it clear when a question falls outside their expertise or when they lack sufficient information to form a definite opinion.

Experts should consider all relevant information, including facts that might challenge their own opinions.

CPR Part 35 and Practice Direction 35 highlight the importance of expert evidence being unbiased and objective, serving the court, not advocating for a specific party.