Hi all.

As you might know I'm defending a civil action.

I have received witness statements from the claimants and they
contain numerous items of heresay.

Can I highlight them and apply to have those comments ignored or
thrown-out (don't know the correct terminology), when I cross
examine?

Thanks in advance..

H.
--
HowieC
www.writeproper.co.uk
Copywriter | Enhanced Proofreading | English Language Consultant.

Apply the usual ROTten Baker's-Dozen to the following to reply by email:
R-Znvy: hfrargNGjevgrcebcre.pbQBGhx
Fxlcr: ubjvr10

"HowieC" wrote in message
...
Hi all.

As you might know I'm defending a civil action.

I have received witness statements from the claimants and they
contain numerous items of heresay.

Can I highlight them and apply to have those comments ignored or
thrown-out (don't know the correct terminology), when I cross
examine?

Thanks in advance..

H.
--
HowieC
www.writeproper.co.uk
Copywriter | Enhanced Proofreading | English Language Consultant.

Apply the usual ROTten Baker's-Dozen to the following to reply by email:
R-Znvy: hfrargNGjevgrcebcre.pbQBGhx
Fxlcr: ubjvr10



HEARSAY - because the witness 'heard someone say it' not 'heresay'.

You can certainly ask the judge to ignore them, and in all likelihood he
will agree, though of course by then he will have read the hearsay evidence.

I don't think you ask him at cross-exam though. In cross-exam you just get
the witness to agree that he has no personal knowledge of the matters as to
which the hearsay evidence is purportedly given.

Then in closing you point out to the judge that it's hearsay and that there
is no proper first-hand evidence to support the allegations.

Andrew McGee

On Nov 13, 4:20 pm, "Andrew McGee" wrote:
"HowieC" wrote in message

...



Hi all.

As you might know I'm defending a civil action.

I have received witness statements from the claimants and they
contain numerous items of heresay.

Can I highlight them and apply to have those comments ignored or
thrown-out (don't know the correct terminology), when I cross
examine?

Thanks in advance..

H.
--
HowieC
www.writeproper.co.uk
Copywriter | Enhanced Proofreading | English Language Consultant.

Apply the usual ROTten Baker's-Dozen to the following to reply by email:
R-Znvy: hfrargNGjevgrcebcre.pbQBGhx
Fxlcr: ubjvr10

HEARSAY - because the witness 'heard someone say it' not 'heresay'.

You can certainly ask the judge to ignore them, and in all likelihood he
will agree, though of course by then he will have read the hearsay evidence.

I don't think you ask him at cross-exam though. In cross-exam you just get
the witness to agree that he has no personal knowledge of the matters as to
which the hearsay evidence is purportedly given.

Then in closing you point out to the judge that it's hearsay and that there
is no proper first-hand evidence to support the allegations.

Is it worth writing to the claimant pointing out that a number of the
witness statements appear to contain hearsay rather than actual
evidence? (This might strengthen the OPs case when he applies for
costs.)

Also, not /all/ hearsay is inadmissible. I believe that in criminal
cases hearsay evidence of the accused admitting his guilt is allowed
(on the basis that people are unlikely to admit guilt for something
they haven't done). Does the same apply to civil cases (for example
"I heard him say that he owed the money / that he hadn't actually done
the work")?

Martin Bonner wrote:

Also, not /all/ hearsay is inadmissible. I believe that in criminal
cases hearsay evidence of the accused admitting his guilt is allowed
(on the basis that people are unlikely to admit guilt for something
they haven't done). Does the same apply to civil cases (for example
"I heard him say that he owed the money / that he hadn't actually done
the work")?

Neither of those examples are hearsay. In both cases, the witness can testify
to the fact the the defendant spoke those words. Hearsay refers to second-hand
information such as "X told me that Y said..." If what Y said is relevant to
the matter, Y should be called to give that evidence on oath so it can be tested
by cross-examination.

--
Mike

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 17:15:08 +0000, Martin Bonner
wrote:

On Nov 13, 4:20 pm, "Andrew McGee" wrote:
"HowieC" wrote in message

...



Hi all.

As you might know I'm defending a civil action.

I have received witness statements from the claimants and they
contain numerous items of heresay.

Can I highlight them and apply to have those comments ignored or
thrown-out (don't know the correct terminology), when I cross
examine?

Thanks in advance..

H.
--
HowieC
www.writeproper.co.uk
Copywriter | Enhanced Proofreading | English Language Consultant.

Apply the usual ROTten Baker's-Dozen to the following to reply by email:
R-Znvy: hfrargNGjevgrcebcre.pbQBGhx
Fxlcr: ubjvr10

HEARSAY - because the witness 'heard someone say it' not 'heresay'.

You can certainly ask the judge to ignore them, and in all likelihood he
will agree, though of course by then he will have read the hearsay evidence.

I don't think you ask him at cross-exam though. In cross-exam you just get
the witness to agree that he has no personal knowledge of the matters as to
which the hearsay evidence is purportedly given.

Then in closing you point out to the judge that it's hearsay and that there
is no proper first-hand evidence to support the allegations.

Is it worth writing to the claimant pointing out that a number of the
witness statements appear to contain hearsay rather than actual
evidence? (This might strengthen the OPs case when he applies for
costs.)

Also, not /all/ hearsay is inadmissible. I believe that in criminal
cases hearsay evidence of the accused admitting his guilt is allowed
(on the basis that people are unlikely to admit guilt for something
they haven't done). Does the same apply to civil cases (for example
"I heard him say that he owed the money / that he hadn't actually done
the work")?

The general rule in civil cases is that hearsay *is* admissible:

"In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground
that it is hearsay" - Civil Evidence Act 1995 s.1(1).

The Act includes a requirement for any party intending to call hearsay
evidence to give notice of the fact, and of "such particulars relating
to the evidence as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstances
for the purpose of [the other party] ... to deal with any matters
arising from its being hearsay". See ss. 2 & 3 of the Act and rule 33
of the Civil Procedure Rules.

The weight to be attached to hearsay evidence is a matter for the
judge, who is given a non-exhaustive list of matters to take into
account (s.4). His discretion extends to giving the evidence a weight
of zero if that seems appropriate.

--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

In message , Mike
writes
Martin Bonner wrote:

Also, not /all/ hearsay is inadmissible. I believe that in criminal
cases hearsay evidence of the accused admitting his guilt is allowed
(on the basis that people are unlikely to admit guilt for something
they haven't done). Does the same apply to civil cases (for example
"I heard him say that he owed the money / that he hadn't actually done
the work")?

Neither of those examples are hearsay. In both cases, the witness can testify
to the fact the the defendant spoke those words. Hearsay refers to second-hand
information such as "X told me that Y said..." If what Y said is relevant to
the matter, Y should be called to give that evidence on oath so it can
be tested
by cross-examination.


You've misunderstood. When the witness says "X told me that he did A and
B", that is direct evidence that X spoke those words, but it is hearsay
as to the fact whether X did A and B.

Your second example is simply second-hand hearsay.
--
Richard Miller

In message
,
Martin Bonner writes

Also, not /all/ hearsay is inadmissible. I believe that in criminal
cases hearsay evidence of the accused admitting his guilt is allowed
(on the basis that people are unlikely to admit guilt for something
they haven't done). Does the same apply to civil cases (for example "I
heard him say that he owed the money / that he hadn't actually done the
work")?

In civil cases, most types of hearsay are allowable. The question for
the Court is about the weight to be attached rather than whether it
should be allowed.
--
Richard Miller

On 13 Nov, 21:10, Richard Miller
wrote:


You've misunderstood. When the witness says "X told me that he did A and
B", that is direct evidence that X spoke those words, but it is hearsay
as to the fact whether X did A and B.

Your second example is simply second-hand hearsay.

Richard is (unsurprisingly) right. The definition of hearsay is "any
statement other than testimony that is adduced for the truth of what
it says".

Francis

Richard Miller wrote:
In message , Mike
writes
Martin Bonner wrote:

Also, not /all/ hearsay is inadmissible. I believe that in criminal
cases hearsay evidence of the accused admitting his guilt is allowed
(on the basis that people are unlikely to admit guilt for something
they haven't done). Does the same apply to civil cases (for example
"I heard him say that he owed the money / that he hadn't actually done
the work")?

Neither of those examples are hearsay. In both cases, the witness can
testify
to the fact the the defendant spoke those words. Hearsay refers to
second-hand
information such as "X told me that Y said..." If what Y said is
relevant to
the matter, Y should be called to give that evidence on oath so it can
be tested
by cross-examination.


You've misunderstood.

I don't think I did but I may not have explained it as well as you do. :-(

When the witness says "X told me that he did A and
B", that is direct evidence that X spoke those words, but it is hearsay
as to the fact whether X did A and B.

Yes, I agree. That's, essentially, what I intended to say.

Your second example is simply second-hand hearsay.

Agreed.

--
Mike