Alec McKenzie wrote:
"The Todal" wrote:

Rule 33: 'hearsay' means a statement made, otherwise than by a
person while giving oral evidence in proceedings, which is
tendered as evidence of the matters stated.

This reminds me of the only occasion in which I have been in the
witness box in legal proceedings (it was a civil matter, at a
hearing held in camera).

Barrister: And how did he react to that proposal?
Me: He was very much against it.
Barrister: How do you know that?
Me: Because he told me so.
Barrister: Oh well, that's just hearsay, then.

I protested, and the judge agreed with me. How does this tie in
with the Rule 33 quoted above?

It wasn't hearsay because it wasn't admitted directly to prove what he
said, but the reason you thought he was against it.

Stu

wrote:

Thanks. Perhaps I gave a bad example. "A told me he lives at 10
Downing Street" might be a better example. Being told this by A is
not proof that A really does live in Downing Street, so would this
be hearsay?

If A says it in court it's direct testimony. If you repeat what he
said for the purpose of proving he lives there, it's hearsay.

As Alex McKenzie demonstrated, if you are in court and they want to
know why you went to 10 Downing Street, you can testify that he told
you he lived there. It's not hearsay because the issue isn't whether
he lived there, but why you went there.

Stu

"Stuart A. Bronstein" writes:

If A says it in court it's direct testimony. If you repeat what he
said for the purpose of proving he lives there, it's hearsay.

And if you repeat it to show, as A is not the Prime Minister, that A
is unreliable and makes false statements?

Graham Murray wrote:
"Stuart A. Bronstein" writes:

If A says it in court it's direct testimony. If you repeat what he
said for the purpose of proving he lives there, it's hearsay.

And if you repeat it to show, as A is not the Prime Minister, that A
is unreliable and makes false statements?

If you repeat it to show that A thinks he's Prime Minister, or
something that does is unrelated to where he lives, it's not hearsay
because whether or not he lives there is not really the issue.

Stu

"Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote in message
. 1.4...
Alec McKenzie wrote:
"The Todal" wrote:

Rule 33: 'hearsay' means a statement made, otherwise than by a
person while giving oral evidence in proceedings, which is
tendered as evidence of the matters stated.

This reminds me of the only occasion in which I have been in the
witness box in legal proceedings (it was a civil matter, at a
hearing held in camera).

Barrister: And how did he react to that proposal?
Me: He was very much against it.
Barrister: How do you know that?
Me: Because he told me so.
Barrister: Oh well, that's just hearsay, then.

I protested, and the judge agreed with me. How does this tie in
with the Rule 33 quoted above?

It wasn't hearsay because it wasn't admitted directly to prove what he
said, but the reason you thought he was against it.

That's right. It would not be right for the judge to say "I accept that he
was against it, I am told that he had several reasons for being against it
and I accept those reasons as good ones" - not without giving the litigants
a chance to examine that person in the witness box. If the judge wanted to
accept those reasons as good ones, he would have to do so on the basis of
evidence from someone whose evidence was fully tested.

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:


It wasn't hearsay because it wasn't admitted directly to prove what he
said, but the reason you thought he was against it.


Sorry. I disagree.

The witness gave evidence that "X was against it". That is something he
could not know of his own knowledge and so was asked for evidence of
it. He said that he knew it because he was told it, which means that
the "X told me he was against it" is being used to support the
proposition that he was against it. Very clearly hearsay. It might not
be in the US, but it is here (trust me, I am good at this sort of thing
8-).

However, hearsay is admissible in civil proceedings, subject to
considerations of weight.

Francis

" wrote:

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:


It wasn't hearsay because it wasn't admitted directly to prove what he
said, but the reason you thought he was against it.


Sorry. I disagree.

The witness gave evidence that "X was against it". That is something he
could not know of his own knowledge and so was asked for evidence of
it. He said that he knew it because he was told it, which means that
the "X told me he was against it" is being used to support the
proposition that he was against it. Very clearly hearsay. It might not
be in the US, but it is here (trust me, I am good at this sort of thing
8-).

However, hearsay is admissible in civil proceedings, subject to
considerations of weight.

As the witness in question, might I comment on what is said here.

I knew that "X was against it" because X told me so himself. I
can think of no better way for me to have known.

It may well be correct that hearsay is admissible in civil
proceedings, but that is not the reason the judge admitted the
evidence. He ruled that it was not hearsay.

--
Alec McKenzie

On Jan 10, 11:25 am, Alec McKenzie wrote:
" wrote:
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

It wasn't hearsay because it wasn't admitted directly to prove what he
said, but the reason you thought he was against it.

Sorry. I disagree.

The witness gave evidence that "X was against it". That is something he
could not know of his own knowledge and so was asked for evidence of
it. He said that he knew it because he was told it, which means that
the "X told me he was against it" is being used to support the
proposition that he was against it. Very clearly hearsay. It might not
be in the US, but it is here (trust me, I am good at this sort of thing
8-).

However, hearsay is admissible in civil proceedings, subject to
considerations of weight.As the witness in question, might I comment on what is said here.

I knew that "X was against it" because X told me so himself. I
can think of no better way for me to have known.

It may well be correct that hearsay is admissible in civil
proceedings, but that is not the reason the judge admitted the
evidence. He ruled that it was not hearsay.

What if X had also told someone else that he was for it? I think that
the fact that you say that what he said to you demonstrates that you
had very good grounds for believing that he was against it.

Presumably whether someone was for or against someone would really be
demonstrated by their actions.

Nick

" wrote:
Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:

It wasn't hearsay because it wasn't admitted directly to prove
what he said, but the reason you thought he was against it.

Sorry. I disagree.

The witness gave evidence that "X was against it". That is
something he could not know of his own knowledge and so was asked
for evidence of it. He said that he knew it because he was told
it, which means that the "X told me he was against it" is being
used to support the proposition that he was against it. Very
clearly hearsay. It might not be in the US, but it is here (trust
me, I am good at this sort of thing 8-).

I agree that it's hearsay if sought to be admitted for the purpose of
showing that X was against it. But if it was to be admitted for the
purpose of determine what the witness thought (if relevant), I think
that would be a different proposition.

Stu

"Anthony R. Gold" wrote:
"Stuart A. Bronstein" wrote:
" wrote:

The witness gave evidence that "X was against it". That is
something he could not know of his own knowledge and so was
asked for evidence of it. He said that he knew it because he was
told it, which means that the "X told me he was against it" is
being used to support the proposition that he was against it.
Very clearly hearsay. It might not be in the US, but it is here
(trust me, I am good at this sort of thing 8-).

I agree that it's hearsay if sought to be admitted for the
purpose of showing that X was against it. But if it was to be
admitted for the purpose of determine what the witness thought
(if relevant), I think that would be a different proposition.

Certainly, but in this case the court was apparently trying to
determine only the state of mind of X and not the state of mind of
the witness.

I'd think that if the court were trying to determine the mental state
of X, as opposed to the truth of what X said, it would not be
considered hearsay.

For example, X declares (incorrectly), "I am the Prime Minister." At a
hearing to determine whether he should be declared incompetent, I would
imagine that someone could testify to what X said. The issue is not
whether he really is the Prime Minister, but his mental abilities.

Stu