Law of Evidence: R v Kearley Essay -- Papers

Law of Evidence: R v Kearley Essentially this piece concerns whether the House of Lords correctly decided the case of R v Kearley[1]. The majority decided allowing the appeal, that the evidence concerned in this case was either irrelevant, and therefore inadmissible (unless part of the res gestae) or was inadmissible as hearsay in the form of an implied assertion. The facts of Kearley will be discussed, followed by an analysis of the decision by their Lordships, finally considering the issues of relevance and implied assertions in relation to the decision in Kearley. The facts of Kearley are well known. The disputed evidence was that the police officers whilst on the raid answered a number of callers to the flats, both by telephone and by visitors. The police officers testified that the callers were seeking to buy drugs in place of the original callers who were unwilling or unable to attend court. The appellant objected to the evidence on the ground that it was hearsay, but this was overruled. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and certified a question to the House of Lords. Condensing the certified question, it was whether a person not called as a witness, for the purpose of not establishing the truth of any fact narrated by the words, but of inviting the jury to draw an inference from the fact that the words were spoken ? [2] On the issue of relevancy, Lord Ackner for the majority considered that each request was evidence of the state of mind of the person making the request, and that was an irrelevant issue in the trial. This was backed up by Lords Bridge and Oliver. It should be noted though that Lord Bridge f... ...[1986] 86 Cr App R 105 [15] DPP v Kilbourne [1973] AC 726 per Lord Simon at P756 [16] [1993] 13 Legal Studies 54, 65 [17] Law of Evidence (1999) Page 528 [18] [1993] 56 MLR 138, 146 [19] Per Lord Griffiths in Kearley at Page 348 [20] [1993] CLJ 40, 41 [21] ibid no. 19 [22] The Modern Law of Evidence (4th Edition) (Butterworths) [23] Wright v Doe D Tatham (1837) and Teper v R (1952) [24] [1993] 13 Legal Studies 54 59 [25] [1993] 56 MLR 138, 140 [26] Law of Evidence (1999) [27] [1992] NLJ 1194, 1194 [28] [1993] 56 MLR 138, 148 [29] [1993] 56 MLR 138, 151-152 [30] [1994] 110 LQR 431, 438 [31] Report No. 245: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings and Related Topics (1997) [32] Pattenden, Rein - (modified version though), and Cross [33] [1993] CLJ 40, 42