Description of the legal term Out-of-Court Statement:
Out-of-court statements refer to any expressions, declarations, or utterances made outside of the courtroom and not in the course of giving evidence. In the legal context of England and Wales, these are often crucial when considering the admissibility of evidence. Traditionally, these statements are considered hearsay when they are presented for the truth of their content and not just for the fact that they were said. Hearsay is generally not admissible as evidence in trial proceedings because the person who made the statement is not present in court to be cross-examined on their declaration, and thus the reliability of the statement cannot be easily contested.
The rules governing the admissibility of these statements are primarily set out in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Civil Evidence Act 1995. For criminal cases, out-of-court statements are admissible under certain conditions, such as when the original speaker is unavailable, has given consent, or if the statement falls within a statutory or common law exception. In civil cases, the rules are slightly more relaxed, but the statement must still fall within certain criteria to be permitted.
A significant reform in the legislation regarding out-of-court statements occurred with the passage of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which expanded the circumstances under which such statements could be admitted in criminal proceedings. This included provisions for admitting statements when they are believed to be reliable, when the witness is unable or unwilling to testify, or when the statement is from a document produced by a business or public body in the course of their activities.
When assessing reliability, courts consider factors such as whether there is any other evidence that corroborates the statement or the circumstances in which the statement was made. Therefore, the fact-finding mission of the court is not necessarily hampered by the hearsay rule but instead seeks to ensure that the evidence considered is as reliable as possible given the circumstances.
Legal context in which the term Out-of-Court Statement may be used:
One illustrative example is when a witness to an alleged crime tells a passerby what they saw immediately after the incident occurs. The passerby could be called to testify about what was said to them, but the statement itself—”I saw the man in the red jacket take her purse!”—made out of court, could be inadmissible as evidence unless it meets the criteria set out by the legislation. If it can be shown that the witness is now unavailable, perhaps having left the jurisdiction permanently, and there’s no reason to doubt the reliability of their immediate reaction, the out-of-court statement could be admitted under the appropriate exception in the Criminal Justice Act.
Another example occurs within commercial litigation when a business’s internal documents are necessary to prove a point at trial. An employee’s written report about a faulty production process could fall under the business documents exception to the hearsay rule. Because the document was created in the ordinary course of business and its contents are relevant to the case at hand, it may be admissible despite the fact that the employee who wrote the report is not testifying in court.
These examples reflect the complexity and the necessity of meticulous legal scrutiny required when dealing with out-of-court statements. The careful balance between the necessity of certain evidence for a fair trial and the principles of allowing cross-examination to test the veracity of statements is central to the integrity of the British legal process. Out-of-court statements, while potentially problematic, are a key aspect of evidence law, and their use is tightly controlled to ensure that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done.