Witness Statement

[amor]

somebody in my family has been falsely accused of indecent assault that happened 33 years ago on one of his children. The witness is a sibling who claims when she was 10 overheard her mum say: he only did it once.
Can overhearing a sentence out of context be taken as evidence in court as he is going to have a trial in the crown court.

Many thanks for your help.

[Old_Geezer]

I think it unlikely. Hearsay isn't it. And one person's interpretation too.
But I'm no expert.

[jackthehat]

There would have to be far more evidence than that for the CPS to consider sending the case for trial.

I think you have only been given part of the story...

[jake-the-peg]

I think the answer is obviously not if that's the only evidence.

I don't know where you are getting this from - the accused?

If that's the case I'd say that you'll be getting a pretty sanitised version of the facts.

I would imagine the accusation is supported by evidence from the alleged victim - no?

[boxtops]

The overheard conversation could be about anything, if that's all the person heard her mum say. There must be more evidence than that.

[amor]

The victim has changed her statement. At first she did not remember the fact, but remembered some sort of counselling where the fact was discussed (?). I find hard to believe that a counsellor would send a child home to her dad when she reported abuse???? Now the victim says she remembers the fact (indecent assault) that happened 33 years ago when she was 3.
Also the witness has changed her statement. At first the overheard sentence was between mum (mum is deceased now) and dad; now the sentence overheard was between mum and the alleged victim.

[FredPuli43]

No, it's hearsay. That is it would be being adduced not only to prove that that the witness heard it or that the mother said it, but to prove that what the statement contained was true. Now, if I come in and say to someone "It is raining" that is not admissible to show that it is raining, and it does not become proof because they hear me say it and recount the fact. If they ran and got an umbrella, they could speak to that fact alone, and might be allowed to say that they did so as a result of what they heard, but the statement itself is not proof.

There are exceptions, clearly defined: saying how old you are, for example, and admissions by an accused, and things said in the agony of the moment (res gestae: lawyers love Latin) when the witness didn't have time to think or lie, but they are limited.

[amor]

Can the prosecution withhold evidence contained in the files? Or all have got to be disclosed to the accused and his solicitor? I am getting info from the accused.

Thanks for your help. really appreciated

[boxtops]

I understood that the prosecution can't spring "evidence" at court which the accused isn't aware of (Fred and others are probably more informed than I am about this). The accused has to know what they are accused of.

[amor]

thanks boxtops. The accused knows he is accused of one count of indecent assault on one of his children 33 years ago. What he does not know is if the hearsay is all the evidence the prosecution has got. I was told.

Many thanks again. i am really worried.

[jackthehat]

The 'hearsay' can't possibly be all the evidence that the Prosecution has to hand.
There will be far more than that........and indeed, the 'hearsay' may have already been discounted.

[FredPuli43]

And, amor, a statement made by someone who is now deceased does not magically become not hearsay because they are not alive. The exception is declarations against interest, when the deceased person has made some statement so adverse to their own interest that common sense, and thus the courts, dictate that it must be true, prima facie. Deathbed statements often fall into this category.

[Peter Pedant]

Freddie - you have missed out dead people

no not in 'Dead People speak to me' but they said it alive and are now are dead. You may say that is not hearsay but something - aliquid novum perhaps,

As you say it is going to trial and so the decision has been made to prosecute and so clearly the answer would be yes - they arent gonna prosecute on evidence that is inadmissible and therefore there is something else we havent been told....The CPS dont have to tell either amor or ABers en masse why they have decided to prosecute.

Also.... if Freddie said 'Boo!' and I stood up in court and said Freddie said, 'Boo' so long as Freddie is on the witness list and is available for examination, it is admissible aint it ?

No I am not a lawyer and I know diddly squat about Law of Evidence in crimminal cases.

[Peter Pedant]

oops Fredd - we must be in psychic contact !

Junga had domething to say about that - ( synchronicity )

Cheers F - didja see the ickle liars on tel this pm ?

[Old_Geezer]

That long ago memories can be false. One tries one's best to remember the facts but the mind loves to fill in details for itself, and the individual can't easily sort the wheat from the chaff.

[FredPuli43]

And, boxy, unfortunately for the defence, the prosecution do spring evidence upon you. But this is always covered by formal witness statements served by way of additional evidence, sometimes very late in the day or even after the trial has started; this can happen when it suddenly appears that the defence has taken some utterly unforeseen line, asserting something which you could not conceive of; but usually it is to tidy up or clarify earlier statements or to amplify them.

[boxtops]

Ah - thank you, Fred, I didn't know that.

[amor]

I agree with old geezer.
But Peter Pedant, if the accused does not know what all the evidence is, how can he defend himself? Is it a fair trial? BTW the accused is pleading not guilty all the way.

Many thanks for your help

[FredPuli43]

Ah, PP I have covered dead people, as indeed most corpses are, and what they say. Witnesses can always speak to the apparent emotions of others and to what they, by their words or actions, show their feelings to be. My yelling "Boo!" is not an assertion of fact anyway; it doesn't contain some claim of fact; but is admissible to show my emotion and also to show what the witness did in consequence and why, that he was startled and therefore looked at me, for example.

When you think about it, my saying that a man was 40 could only be hearsay at best, unless I was present at his birth. He himself cannot know when the year or date was except from what he has been told. But we allow it as an expression of opinion, of description, because common sense demands it.

[FredPuli43]

amor, he'll defend himself on the admissible evidence, not the stuff that isn't admissible. Even the CPS are supposed to know the difference, but if they don't, prosecuting counsel, defence counsel, and the judge will

There is undoubtedly more to this case than one highly doubtful statement which can't go before the court.

[FredPuli43]

Boxy, an example of last minute evidence. I prosecuted a man who had covered his rear number plate with some fabric, to avoid detection when he took petrol from a pump and drove of without paying. In evidence, he asserted, which he had never done in interview; then he claimed that was never in the area; that a piece of sack in the boot had fallen out partially and covered the plate. I called expert evidence then that the make and model of car had its rear plate built into the boot lid, so his explanation was a lie. Unhappily for him, I myself was driving exactly the same make and model of car at the time and it was in the car park of the court. So I invited the judge and jury to come out and view it,which they did, so it could be demonstrated whether the defendant was lying. That's an example of evidence being sprung on the defendant !