Talk:Hearsay in English law

I have reverted Lucy-marie's edit, though it was clearly well-intentioned. The article is referring to and quoting from the Criminal Justice Act 2003, s118 (1) 3,:

3 Any rule of law under which in criminal proceedings evidence of reputation or family tradition is admissible for the purpose of proving or disproving-

(a) pedigree or the existence of a marriage,

(b) the existence of any public or general right, or

(c) the identity of any person or thing. [1]

It makes no reference to civil partnerships, and, indeed, could not because they were established under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. It may be that the latter Act has an amendment to the former, in which case if it can be sourced the fact could be added as appropriate. A brief perusal of the 2004 Act hasn't shown this amendment, but I stress it was brief. Emeraude 11:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Having had more time to read the Civil Partnership Act 2004, I can find no reference in the thirty Schedules (i.e. where older Acts are amended) to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, so it looks like 'civil partnerships' has to stay out for now. If someone wants to read through the whole of the main body of the CP Act (see it here), please do, but I fear it is not there. Perhaps it should be, but there you are. Emeraude 12:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emeraude: I am not sure how you would like to deal with this but the section I think that you are looking for is: Section 84 Civil Partnership Act 2004. Explanatory note: Subsection (1) of this section provides that enactments or rules of law applying to the giving of evidence by a spouse will apply also to the giving of evidence by a civil partner. However, subsection (2) sets out that the general provision in subsection (1) is subject to any specific amendment made by or under the Act which relates to the giving of evidence by a civil partner. This takes account of the fact that in some instances it is more appropriate to amend specific provisions in other enactments or rules. A number of the amendments made by Schedule 27 relate specifically to the giving of evidence by a civil partner. Subsection (5) provides that any rule of law which makes evidence of family tradition admissible to prove or disprove the existence of a marriage is to apply in a similar way in order to prove or disprove the existence of a civil partnership. The explanatory note is Crown copyright. (I hope it ok to post it here for information purposes?) Ron Barker 12:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done! I missed that. It would have been incongruous for the change not to have been made, but that sort of omission does happen. I will re-edit the article to reflect this. Thanks. Emeraude 13:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

US law?

Why is there a link to Hearsay in US law? The title clearly states that this is English (although it should be British) law. You'd have to type the whole thing out, or follow a disambiguation link. I'm removing it. 88.110.103.20 15:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a point - it could not be "British" law - Scotland do not have the same legal system as England and Wales. Northern Ireland's legal system is broadly in line with that of England and Wales but some statute names differ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.152.110 (talk) 19:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion from article in Criminal Law and Justice magazine (someone with access to the full article will have to add this) "Since CJA 2003 the courts have adopted a "flexible approach" towards the admission of hearsay evidence. This remains largely intact post-Al-Khawaja. However, there are two issues the court must now consider when faced with hearsay statements said to be the decisive evidence in a case. First, a new corroboration test, triggered at the close of the prosecution case, determines if the evidence is indeed decisive. Secondly, there must be no question that the decisive evidence is reliable before it can be admitted. Finally, there is no barrier to admission of unreliable hearsay statements that are not decisive.

" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.213.110.4 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy Savile???

Any licensed UK Solicitors or Barristers here??? Would like to know how the hearsay rule would hypothtically apply to a case against him if he were alive???johncheverly 00:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

This user is spamming his complaints against the British media across various talk pages, and has been politely asked to desist. It doesn't seem relevant at all to this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hearsay in English law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060526150435/http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc245.pdf to http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc245.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)