The Hearsay Rule under the Criminal Justice Act 2003: R v Xhabri (Agrol)
| DOI | 10.1350/ijep.10.4.316 |
| Date | 01 July 2006 |
| Published date | 01 July 2006 |
| Author | Billal Malik |
| Subject Matter | Case Note |
CASE NOTE
HEARSAY RULE UNDER THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 2003:R v XHABRI
CASE NOTE
The hearsay rule under the Criminal
Justice Act 2003: RvXhabri (Agrol)
By Billal Malik*
Pupil Barrister, 3 Raymond Buildings
Many lawyers do not find that the hearsay rule trips off the tongue.
They apply it by instinct rather than design. Laymen may be utterly
baffled by the rule. Next month we enter a new era when the hearsay
provisions contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 between
sections 114 and 136 come into force. New instincts will then have to
be acquired and no doubt new anomalies are likely to emerge.1
n 1993 the Report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice stated
the hearsay rule to be ‘exceptionally complex and difficult to interpret’,2
and suggested a fresh approach whereby the probative value of such
evidence would be the sole determinant of its admissibility. No doubt the
Commission was concerned to remedy the strained interpretations of the hearsay
rule that judges seeking to do justice would often make.3The Royal Commission’s
report prompted the Law Commission to explore the issue, and in 1997 the latter
published its own report in which it outlined a number of reforms.4The hearsay
provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 reflect the recommendations of the
Law Commission.
316 (2006) 10 E&P 316–320 E & P
1RvKelly [2005] EWCA Crim 730 at [12].
2 Cm 2263 (HMSO: London, 1993) 125.
3 Birch has labelled such interpretations ‘hearsay fiddles’—see D. Birch, ‘Hearsay: Same Old Story,
Same Old Song?’ [2004] Crim LR 556, 560.
4Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Hearsay and Related Topics, Law Commission Report No. 245 (1997),
available at www.lawcom.gov.uk/lc_reports.htm, accessed 27 July 2006.
I
* Email: billalmalik@hotmail.com.
To continue reading
Request your trial