Evidence of those who relate not to what they know but what they have heard from others as to what is said or written, and is inadmissible because the person making statement isn’t in court for veracity of statement or his person to be tested, per R v Abbey as the principal justification for exclusion.
Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor it’s hearsay and inadmissible when object of evidence is to establish truth of statement and not hearsay and admissible when proposed to established not truth but fact that it was made.
CL-use of hearsay evidence is gen not allowed, prohibition called the Hearsay Rule (HR), exceptions are confessions, admissions, deathbed declarations, res gestae-Latin means things done, reference to facts though not in issue are so connected with issue as to form part of same transaction.
S 116 hearsay is statement (oral, written, conduct) of a declarant and not the witness offered to prove the truth of a matter stated where declarant is unavailable (privileged, disqualified, dead, physical or mental incapacity, refused to attend trial) S 117 hearsay not admissible except provided by Act, other enactment or agreed by parties.
Exceptions to hearsay: S 111 lay opinion-supra S 112 expert opinion-supra,Osei v Republic Francois JA handwriting expert may acquire knowledge in handwriting in his way of business or not, and not be excluded merely because experience wasn’t gained in way of business, our courts have followed the principle inR v Rickard that judges may form their own opinion on disputed handwriting, per R v Oakley police officer’s experience in investigating motor traffic accidents may make him an expert,
per Barron Devor’s Case a practitioner of former practitioner may be an expert in foreign law, per Feneku v John Teyeprinciple governing expert evidence is judge need not accept any expert evidence offered, only assisted by it to arrive at conclusion of his own, court entitled to examine docs and reach own conclusion, only a prima facie case and not considered as deciding issue for court, not binding on judge.
S 118 if statement would be admissible had it been made while testifying and would not of itself be hearsay and declarant is unavailable or will be a witness subject to cross-examination or available as witness and person offering evidence has given reasonable notice to court without objection by other party S121 if it’s a former testimony by declarant as witness in an action and was examined by an interested party S122 if statement is contained in writing constituting record and perceived S 123 if statement state’s declarant’s existing state of mind, emotion or physical sensation and not of memory or belief
S 124 if statement was made while declarant was perceiving event or condition in narration immediately after event S 125 if statement in writing as a record of event made in course of business, at or near the time of event and reasonably trustworthy S 126 if in writing recorded as official record by and within scope of duty of public officer S 127 final judgement in criminal or civil action of guilt relied upon by prosecution or judgement debtor to prove fact essential to the judgement, to recover indemnity, exoneration, liability, warranty or damages, or offered to prove liability of person other than party
S 128if concerns birth, death, marriage, divorce, blood relationship, adoption, ancestry or similar fact made before controversy arose over fact of family history, same if entered in family bible, portrait and inscriptions on building, tombstone etc. S 129if statement is reputation of community concerning, gen history, custom, boundary affecting land which arose before controversy S 130 if contained in deed of conveyance, will or writing to affect movable or immovable property concerns interest therein and dealings with property and since statement made are consistent, even if writing more than 20 years old and acted upon since
S 131 if it’s reputation of one’s character or trait in a group regularly associated offered to prove truth of matter reputed S 132if it’s a published treatise, periodical or pamphlet on history or literature science or art if judicial notice is taken of or testified to by expert witness S 133 where hearsay admitted evidence of conduct of declarant vis a vis his statement isn’t inadmissible for attacking declarant’s credibility though not called as witness to rebut same
S 134 declarant may be called and examined as if under cross-examination per statement, don’t apply if already a witness in the said action or party S 135 in criminal by jury court may exclude evidence admissible under S 121 123124128&130 if circumstances in which it was made indicate untrustworthiness and declarant is available as a witness.
Kuo-Den alias Sobti v Rep hearsay evidence became admissible where no objection was raised to it at trial at time when given as explained under S 117 & S 118.