R v Blastland [1986] 1 AC 41
Citation:R v Blastland [1986] 1 AC 41
Rule of thumb:Is hearsay evidence admissible? No, it is valid. If an actual first-hand witness has said something to another person, this other can be named as a witness. However, the Court cannot give this a higher level of credibility than actual first-hand witness accounts and it must it weigh it in accordingly.
Judgment:
Hearsay evidence can be a relevant source of evidence in some circumstances. Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible in a criminal trial unless an exception is met, but it is generally admissible in a civil trial. The Judge in the case however must only give it a very small amount of weight in making their decision in inferring the facts & consider it as background facts rather than the basis for a fact being inferred, and does not necessarily have to include it in their decision.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘The rationale of excluding [hearsay] as inadmissible, rooted as it is in the system of trial by jury, is a recognition of the great difficulty, even more acute for a juror than for a trained judicial mind, of assessing what, if any, weight can properly be given to a statement by a person whom the jury have not seen or heard and which has not been subject to any test of reliability in cross-examination’, (Lord Bridge)
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.