Rule against hearsay

Definition

1. Section 114 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003) defines hearsay evidence as any ‘statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings.’ Reliance on a statement made otherwise than while giving evidence to prove the truth of a fact asserted remains hearsay.

2. The general rule is that such a statement is inadmissible as evidence of the truth of the facts stated. ¹

3. The rule applies:

• to both examination in chief and cross-examination;
• whether the statement was made by the witness personally or by some other person;
• to any `out of court' statement, whether oral, written or otherwise;
• to statements given as evidence of the truth of its contents - if the statement is given for any purpose which is relevant to the facts in issue in the case, it is admissible, for example, evidence given as to a person's state of mind, rather than what was actually said.

Reasons for the Rule

4. The rule was originally intended to ensure that evidence that might be no more than rumour and gossip, and therefore be regarded as unreliable, was kept from consideration in determining innocence or guilt in the trial process.

5. However it is a rule that is ambiguous both in its definition and its application. If you have evidence that you consider may be "hearsay", you should discuss it with your line management and, if need be, contact your legal liaison point who may in turn contact Solicitor's Office.

---

Footnote

1. R v Sharp [1988] 1 All ER 65, HL; [1988] 1 WLR 7 at 11; Subramanian v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 at 970; R v Kearley [1992] 2 WLR 656 (at 676B and E.), HL.