Essay: Environmental Health Impacts Of Unconventional Methods.

Types of Evidence and Hearsay Evidence

Discuss About The Environmental Health Impacts Unconventional.

When a crime has been committed, it poses threat to the society. Under the Evidence law, there are certain grounds that are acceptable as evidence during the trial section. By the interpretation of the term, evidence means anything that supports either the parties to a case. When a business law case has been filed before a competent authority, certain processes have been taken to clarify the facts of the case and the main intention of the same is to identify the criminal. There are certain types of evidence that are produced before the court to come into a conclusion. Documentary evidence, circumstantial evidence, real evidence and hearsay evidence are some of the instances to the rule. In many countries, it has been ruled out that hearsay evidence is no evidence. In Australia, Uniform Evidence Act governs the criminal acts. The hearsay rule has been engraved under section 59 and section 60 of the Act. According to section 59 of the Act, any person will not be allowed to make any representation regarding the existence of a fact. In simple words, it can be stated that a person is allowed to assert a fact only when he himself experience the crime or the incident. If a person went to the court with the statement that he gains the information from others, it will not be accepted in the court. Hearsay evidence can be of three types such as oral, written and conduct-based. Such an evidence is generally not accepted in the court proceeding. In case of hearsay evidence, there is a term named previous representation. It means certain representation which has been made outside the definition of due course of evidence that are sought to be adduced. Representation can be of oral or written in version. Hearsay evidence is not come under the category of best evidence and therefore, such evidence is not treated as evidence in a court. However, there are certain exceptions to the rules that can be taken as evidence in the court. In the Australian Act, certain effects of the hearsay evidence have been prescribed under section 60. It has been observed under the section that in case a representation has been rejected for ground of non-hearsay purpose that can be accepted as hearsay evidence in subsequent event. However, under this Act, certain discretionary provisions are there mentioned under section 136 of the Act.

Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence

The admissibility of the hearsay evidence has been well described under the case study of Lee v The Queen. In this case, certain robbery has been taken place and it has been observed that one of the defence witnesses conveyed that he had heard that the convict told him that he had fired two shots and the prosecution case was based on him by treating him as a prime witness of the case. However, it has been observed that the witness, on later stage forgot about all the statement. It has been observed in this case that the main intention of the hearsay evidence is to find out the intention of the party that he wants to assert through the case. The Australian Law Commission has concluded that certain problems are cropped up in case of hearsay evidence. In many cases, it has been observed that inconsistencies can be observed in between the previous and present statement of the witnesses. It has further been stated by the Law Commission that inconsistencies can be made between the statement of the witnesses and the evidential report of the expert. In addition to this, according to section 60 of the Uniform Evidence Act, “The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation that is admitted because it is relevant for a purpose other than proof of the fact intended to be asserted by the representation”. It has further been mentioned under section 59 of the Act that any evidence regarding the previous representation could not be treated as admissible if the witness is intending to assert the same by representation. Representation is a process by which the experience of a person regarding an offence has been induced before the court. Further founding has been made in the case where it has been mentioned that difficulties can be raised regarding the prior statement and it is troublesome to determine the evidence in later stage. However, learned court has observed that any unintended implied assertion can be treated as evidence and it can be come under the light of the exception of hearsay rules.

It has been observed from section 60 of the Act that certain effects are created regarding the expert opinion and it has been observed that the factual matters upon which the experts are depending are inadmissible in nature and that cannot be used for assertion of facts. The matter of Lee is historical in the evidential case of Australia. The case has certain serious implications on the conduct litigation.

Exceptions to Hearsay Evidence Rule

The most important and common problem of hearsay evidence is that inconsistencies can be found in between the previous statement and the present statement. On this basis, in most of the countries, hearsay evidence is treated as no evidence. management, there are certain exceptions to the rule. According to the Evidence Law, if any statement has been made immediately after the declaring party has been perceived the same. It is quite difficult to consider the admissible grounds of the hearsay rule; however, in Brand v HMA [2011], the court has stated that if a co-accused state certain things about the other accused in the present of him, the statement made by the co-accused will be regarded as acceptable as the exception of the hearsay rule. Under the legal provision, the statement that has been collected during the medical treatment should be treated as the exception to the hearsay evidence. Further, under the Electronic Transmission Act, any recorded statement could be treated as an exception to the hearsay evidence. However, the question is what type of recorded statement could be treated as acceptable under the law. According to the rule of evidence, when a witness has given a statement in the previous occasion regarding the same case and forget about his statement and in case his submission has been recorded by the court, the said recording could be used in subsequent event to testify the statement.

The case of R v Smith is regarded as revolution in the case of hearsay evidence. In this case it has been observed by the court that where the testimony of the witness is based on reliability, the said statement could be regarded as acceptable as hearsay evidence. In this case, it has been observed that the mother of the victim had received certain phone calls where the deceased had told about the illegal offer made by the killer and her voice was tracked at the murder spot. The statement of the mother is accepted as the rule of hearsay evidence. In R v Starr, it has been held by the court that if the statement made by the witnesses is based on certain standard that goes beyond the reasonable doubt, the same should be come under the purview of exception to the hearsay rule and should be accepted as evidence. It has been observed in R v Khelawon that where certain similarities can be observed in between the statement given by two witnesses, the same will be regarded as acceptable. This rule is based on the principle of principled approach. In case of hearsay evidence, confrontation rule is a well-known principle. According to the rule, the accused can be present in the court when the witnesses have been collected and the accused can confront against the witnesses. Crawford v. Washington is one of the leading case to this effect.

Court Decisions on Hearsay Evidence Rule

It has therefore been observed that hearsay evidence has certain loopholes and the base of the rule is not that much firm like the documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. However, there are certain exceptions to this rule and according to the decisions observed by various courts, it can be stated that the rules of hearsay evidence cannot fully be rejected. To certain extent, hearsay evidences can be acceptable.

The most problematic thing about the subject matter is that there is no perfect definition about the hearsay evidence. It has been observed by Professor Rupert Cross that in case of oral evidence, there are certain exceptions regarding the hearsay evidence. It has been stated by him that no oral evidence adduced by any third party other that the party in concern could be accepted by the court. Further, it has been analyzed by Phipson that formal oral evidence adduced by a party, who has not witnessed the matter could not be accepted by the court. For an example, it can be stated that the an oral evidence made by a police officer regarding an offence that he did not experienced himself cannot be accepted. Phipson has demonstrated that in case of an arrest made for drunken driving could not be accepted by the court if the police officer stated that the other rider of the car confessed that the driver had consumed alcohol before getting into the car. The scope of the hearsay evidence is quite wide in nature. The term does not applicable only on the statement, but it is applicable in case of the signs, drawings, gestures and photographs as well. A broad interpretation regarding the hearsay evidence has been observed in the case of Cullen v Clarke that” In view of some of the arguments addressed to the Court. It is necessary to emphasize that there is no general rule of evidence to the effect that a witness may not testify as to the words spoken by a person who is not produced as a witness. There is a general rule subject to many exceptions that evidence of the speaking of such words is inadmissible to prove the truth of the facts, which they assert; this is the rule known as the rule against hearsay. If the fact that the words were spoken rather than their truth is what it is sought to prove, a statement is admissible.” 

Therefore, it can be understood from the above written note that there are many exceptions to the rule of hearsay evidence. For an instance, it can be stated that in case of a labour, who has sustained injury could not be denied in case of an employment and the evidence of the same will be depended on the grounds where the employer has given negative signal regarding the employment of the employee. However, there are certain grounds that reveal the fact that admissibility of the hearsay evidence has caused serious problem to the witnesses. It has been observed that following are some general problems that might be arisen in case of hearsay evidence:

Limitations of Hearsay Evidence Rule

The first problem regarding the same is that the contents of the hearsay evidence cause injustice to the parties. In case where a witness has been pleaded guilty and the same has been proved by the documents could not be set free if any other party has contended that the witness had stated them that the documents are false in nature.

Further, the content of the hearsay evidence creates serious impact on the witnesses. It has been observed that the effectiveness of the hearsay evidence is quite dramatic and all the reliable evidence has been excluded from the hearsay evidence in certain circumstances. The statements of the witness under this rule make other witnesses confuse and the same affect the justice system.

It has been observed in such cases that the nature of the hearsay evidence is quite complex in nature. It is a fact that the content of the documentary evidence is stable and the subject matter of the matters will remain same after many years. However, in case of hearsay or oral evidence, this can be varied or altered. It is an obvious fact that the memory of the witness can be shortened regarding the matter and after certain years, a witness could not remember his previous statement. In this case, it is very tough to conclude based on those statements. Therefore, hearsay evidence could not be accepted in every possible case. Further, evidences are playing important role in case of giving a judgment. Therefore, it is required that the base of the evidence should be strong and direct. However, both of these qualities are not included in the case of hearsay evidence. According to the Evidence Act, hearsay evidence is weaker in nature. Further, it is secondary in nature and therefore, could not be accepted at all the circumstances.

It has been observed by the court that the nature of the hearsay evidence is often based on the gossip statements and it very tough to prove the contents of the hearsay evidence. There are chances to distort such evidences and therefore, it is very tough to prove the veracity of the content of the task. Further, it has been observed that the in case of hearsay evidence, certain processes are taken to prove the originality of the evidence. In many cases, the evidence are verified by the experts and the court will then precedes with the terms and contents of the evidence. According to the Evidence Act 1995, if any matter of the case requires any evidences from the expert, or any party to the case wants to submit any statement made by an expert, the court may accept the evidence. The general principle of law is that the experts know about certain topics more than the presiding officers of the court does and they can give the evidence precisely and prove the facts of the case scientifically. It has been stated under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that the court should have to give consent over the expert evidence and the experts are only required to provide evidence that are required reasonably so as to resolve the dispute cropped up. The court is expected to grant permission for securing the interest of the parties through the expert evidence and it should ensure fair trial by the expert evidence. However, the court should have to understand the fact that unnecessary cost can be avoided to this effect. The hearsay evidence can be relevant after certain other processes and when all the essentials of the relevant evidence have been fulfilled can verify the same.

There are certain processes when it can be stated that evidence is relevant in nature. All the essentials of the relevant evidence must be taken under observation. It will make the process of collection of evidence secured. The Evidence Act 1995 has identified certain essentials to this effect. The requirements are as follows:

• The evidence has a tendency to make certain possible facts regarding the specific case and the case will not be proved without the proper submission of those evidences;
• The facts that will be come out from the evidence will determine the veracity and consequence of the case.

According to the law, evidence cannot be treated as the relevant on the basis of its inherent characteristics. It has been mentioned under the law that the acceptability power of the evidence is based on the probability of the facts that can be appropriate to prove the case. according to the court of USA, the relevancy of a case can be proved by identifying the matter that can be properly provable. In the case of United States v Foster, it has been observed that the relevancy of evidence can be proved based on the discovery of proposition.

There is a common saying that states, “The Hearsay rule and its prohibition is designed to prevent bad evidence from being put before a Court. There is no situation in which hearsay is acceptable”. The reasons behind the same are as follows:

• There are certain rules regarding the acceptance or production of evidence before the court. It has been observed that most of the evidences are given on oath. However, in case of hearsay evidence, the statements are not taking on oath. Further, in case of hearsay evidence, most of the adduced evidences are based on the out of court settlement.
• In case of trial process, the method of cross-examination is vital in nature. This process helps to identify the truthfulness of evidence. Further, it has been stated that the power of perception and limited liabilities of the witnesses are get approved in the case of cross-witness. Further, to certain extent the problem of ambiguities in case of evidence can be removed by the cross-examination. However, in case of hearsay evidence, such facilities are not available and therefore, in many cases, this system of evidence are not regarded as the evidence in general.
• Certain court-based redundancies are observed in case of hearsay evidence. It has been observed that the hearsay evidence has given birth to multiplication of evidence on a single point and various types of evidence often confuse the witnesses. Further, the investigation report reveals the different issues in certain cases. Therefore, this process has faded the contents of judicial reluctances. All these disadvantages made the admissibility process of hearsay evidence restricted.
• The nature of the judicature is adversary and the judges or the presiding officers are not actively participated in the court. All their decisions are based on the evidences presented to him by both the parties and their advocates. It has been observed that they are relied on the evidences that can be challenged and that can be verified by way of cross-examination. However, hearsay evidence has certain loopholes to the effect and therefore, in many cases, the matter of admissibility does not arise and the courts are not passing their order based on the hearsay evidence.

Considering the weak points of the hearsay evidence, it has been raised that the process of hearsay evidence should be abolished. It has been observed that the law marketing are of the view that the contents of the hearsay evidence should be changed, but they do not mention the process and therefore, dispute has been cropped up to this effect. Further, it has been observed that difference in the opinions make the alteration process difficult. According to the supporter of abolition process of hearsay evidence, the court can get relief from non-presentation of unreliable evidence any more. Further, the traditional approach of oral evidence can be established in the court again and the process of judicature can be progressed by the same. Rachel (2017) has opined that “Abolition would lead to reliance on second-hand documentary evidence which could not be tested”. According to Adrian Keane (2014), the court should based their judgment on reliable evidences and not on the evidences that could be opaque in nature. further, it has been recommended that the court should accept the evidences that has been experienced particularly by the witness and if it has been p[roved that he has no particular observation on the same, the court will reject the content of the case.   

However, it has been observed that the courts and the law commissions are not tried to abolish the system; rather they are trying to make certain rules for the hearsay evidence. The law commission that the hearsay evidence has no particular rule and therefore, certain problems are cropped up due to it has recommended it. Unnecessary interruption of the witnesses should be avoided in case of hearsay evidence and the evidences should be reasonably consistent in nature. If all these things can be resolved, the rule of hearsay evidence can be accepted.

If it has been observed by the court that the witness have stated the fact and the fact has observed by him, the same can be accepted in nature. according to the law commission, there are certain other reliable way that can make the process of hearsay evidence much stronger. It has been stated by the commission that” The opportunity to cross-examine depends on the person who made the statement being a witness. If he is, we recommend that a statement, which satisfies the reliability test, be admissible as evidence; whether it supports the evidence, he gives in court, contradicts it, or fills in a gap resulting from lapse of memory or other cause. If he is not to be a witness, a party who wishes to put his statement in evidence will have to show justification for not calling him. The draft Bill spells out what is sufficient justification”.

There are certain reasons that make the process of abolishment of hearsay rules difficult. It has been observed that the required changes regarding the hearsay rules are quite simple. The process of hearsay evidence can be rejected but if the process has been done without making any amendment regarding the same, the process of justice can be avoided. Certain law makers are of the view that the wide range of hearsay evidence could give the judges an opportunity to revive the judgment and in this process, the veracity of the witnesses can be strong and firm. However, if necessary amendments are required in this field, it can be done in subsequent event. Therefore, it is my opinion too that the process of admissibility regarding the hearsay evidence should not be abolished wholly.

It has further been stated that the abolishment of the rule of hearsay can give birth so many obstacles and therefore, it is required to verify the system of hearsay evidence more particularly. Certain possible changes in the rule of hearsay evidence can make certain scope regarding the reliable evidences. Direct observation of any matter can be taken as a reliable source of evidence. Further, if the statements of any witnesses are repeated in nature, the content of the statement can be accurate and therefore, this rule regarding the hearsay evidence is required to be modified. If in a case, the original statement has been made orally, it is required to be proved that there are some person who have seen that the statement has been made in the presence of him. If the person who saw the event, he will consider as first hand hearsay. The same principle will be applied in case where the original statement has been made in documentary form. Therefore, it can be stated that if sufficient changes can be made in case of hearsay rule, the same can be held as accepted before that court. 

References

Adam v The Queen [2001] 207 accounting 96

Alison v London Underground Ltd [2008] EWCA CIV 71

Anderson, John. Uniform evidence law. Leichhardt, NSW: Federation, 2016.

BBH v The Queen (2012) 245 CLR 499

Birks, Melanie, et al. "Registered nurse scope of practice in Australia: an integrative review of the literature." Contemporary nurse 52.5 (2016): 522-543.

Brodin, Mark S. "The British Experience with Hearsay Reform: A Cautionary Tale." Fordham L. Rev. 84 (2015): 1417.

Canaway, Rachel, et al. "Perceived barriers to effective implementation of public reporting of hospital performance data in Australia: a qualitative study." BMC health services research 17.1 (2017): 391.

Clancy, Greg P., and Richard T. Kingsford. "The conservation status of the Black-necked Stork'Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus' in New South Wales." Australian Field Ornithology 32.2 (2015): 108.

Crawford v. Washington 541 U.S. 36 (2004)

Dasreef Pty Limited v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21

Elias v R [2006] NSWCCA 365

Gulson, Brian, and Alan Taylor. "A simple lead dust fall method predicts children's blood lead level: New evidence from Australia." Environmental research 159 (2017): 76-81.

Hawkins, Derek. "Exclusion of Hearsay Evidence." Wisconsin Law Journal (2017).

HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334

Imwinkelried, Edward J. "The Case for the Present Sense Impression Hearsay Exemption: The Relevance of the Original Version of Federal Rule of Evidence 803 to Judge Posner's Criticismm of the Exeption." U. Louisville L. Rev. 54 (2016): 455.

Keane, Adrian, and Paul McKeown. The modern law of evidence. Oxford University Press, USA, 2014.

Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 244 CLR 352.  

Maloney, Frank, and John M. Schmolesky. "Evidence." Texas Criminal Practice Guide 3 (2016).

Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297

Park, Roger C. "Exporting the Hearsay Provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence." BU Int'l LJ 33 (2015): 327.

R v Khelawon 2006 SCC 57

R v Smith [1992] 2 SCR 915 

R v Starr [2000] 2 SCR 144

Shanahan, E. R., et al. "investigating the intestinal mucosa?associated microbiota–relevance and potential pitfalls. Authors’ reply." Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 44.6 (2016): 648-649.

Spencer, J. R. "Ohio v. Clark in comparative perspective." Psychology, Public Policy, and Business Law 21.4 (2015): 389.

Spencer, John R. Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.

Spencer, John R. Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014.

Stockdale, Michael, and Andrea O’Cain. "Defendant’s Hearsay Evidence which Exculpates One Co-defendant by Incriminating Another: R v Sliogeris [2015] EWCA Crim 22." The Journal of Criminal Law 79.2 (2015): 81-85.

United States v Foster 986 F.2d 541

Werner, Angela K., et al. "Environmental health impacts of unconventional natural gas development: a review of the current strength of evidence." Science of the Total Environment 505 (2015): 1127-1141.

Wilson, Nigel. "The influence of Professor JH Wigmore on evidence law in Australia." The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 19.1 (2015): 29-51.