Hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings

Abstract

The criminal trial, like any other judicial process, is aimed at the search for the truth. Its outcome depends heavily on the evidence produced and the fact finder at a criminal trial must base the verdict and subsequent judgment on admitted evidence and any inferences that may be logically drawn from such evidence. It is on the same evidence that he must either acquit or convict. It is not any type of proof that is admitted in evidence at criminal trials. Many matters, which the ordinary individual would consider as valid for the discovery of the truth, are discarded as inadmissible in the juridical process. The rules of evidence narrow the evidence offered at the trial to those matters that have logical and probative value in determining the guilt or innocence of the accused and which are not unfairly prejudicial to the accused, sometimes excluding evidence that is otherwise logical and probative of guilt. One type of such evidence which is generally excluded, and which is the subject of this thesis, is hearsay evidence. In the first two chapters, the rule against hearsay and its exceptions as they have developed at common law are methodically analysed and discussed. First the historical development of the rule, the reasons for its inception and its definition are outlined, followed by a study of the application of the rule in practice and in relation to the various forms of evidence, ranging from oral testimony to implied assertions, from statements in documents to computer evidence. Chapter Two, is an in depth study of the possible situations where a hearsay statement may be admitted in evidence under the application of exceptions which have developed with the Hearsay Rule under common law. These exceptions are entirely recognised and endorsed under local law except for some possible trivial modifications. The exceptions considered are those relating to statements of deceased persons, public documents, and confessions. Finally the principle of the Res Gestae, which also acts as an exception to the Hearsay Rule, is discussed. Chapter Three sets off with a discussion of the problems posed by the Hearsay Rule along the years and the dilemma of the even greater problems which could ensue if the rule were to be abolished. To substantiate and provide a wider spectrum of argumentation modem approaches adopted by foreign jurisdictions in relation to hearsay evidence are discussed, followed by a reasoned deliberation of the flaws they possess, which will then serve as a basis for a set of proposals for any possible reform of the rule. The chapter concludes by going through the Maltese position as it stands today and the study of some possible indications as to what might be stored in the future of the rule under local legislation. Finally, because the admissibility of hearsay evidence at criminal trials is a very delicate issue when it comes to the rights of the accused, the Hearsay Rule and its ancillaries are discussed in light of the right to a fair trial as sanctioned under the American Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Maltese Constitution.