Maddox Smith Staff asked 4 years ago

In Subramaniam v PP [1956] 1 WLR 965, Mr L. M. D. de Silva, delivering the reasons for the Privy Council, said: Evidence of a statement made by a witness to a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made. The fact that the statement was made, quite apart from its truth, is frequently relevant in considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or of some other person in whose presence the statement was made. In the area of implied assertions and assertions about intention, discuss the extent to which this is any longer an exhaustive articulation of the rules surrounding the admissibility of evidence of what a witness says they heard someone say out of court. In your answer, you should, as far as possible, concisely and clearly express the challenge presented by the reasons for judgment in cases such as Ratten v R [1972] AC 378, Walton v R (1989) 166 CLR 283, R v Benz (1989) 168 CLR 110 and Pollitt v R (1992) 174 CLR 558 to the traditional view expressed in Subramaniam and Myers, and you should undertake relevant research beyond those cases to illuminate the problems that might emerge