| My professional interests |
|
Computing Law Education Science and research |
| My leisure interests |
|
Martial arts Heritage railways Garden railways Motorcycles DIY |
| Downloads |
|
Linux downloads Windows downloads Java downloads Perl downloads Home automation downloads |
| About me |
|
Home & family My CV |
| Site info |
|
Contact the author Download policy Keyword index |
This article describes circumstances in which a witness's previous statements can be admitted in evidence to rebut his testimony in court. Such a situation usually arises during CrossExamination, but it is not entirely unheard of during ExaminationInChief.
Previous inconsistent statements in cross-examination
Under s.4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (1865), the prosecution may adduce evidence of a previous inconsistent statement to rebut the witness's evidence-in-chief, if the witness does not admit to making the previous statement. The usual procedure in modern practice is to ask the witness if he wishes to stand by his testimony before adducing the previous statement. In practice, most witnesses will change their testimony if faced with a conflicting earlier statement. If the witness indicates that he will stand by his testimony, the cross-examining party may adduce rebuttal evidence, even to the extent of calling witnesses in rebuttal.
At common law, the previous statement was admissible only to the extent that it allowed the jury to assess the credibility of the witness. However, under the CriminalJusticeAct2003, s.119 provides that a previous statement is admissibile as evidence of the facts stated.
Previous inconsistent statements in evidence-in-chief
This situation should be relatively rare -- a party ought to be satisfied that a witness he intends to call will `come up to proof'. If the witness does not provide useful or persuasive evidence, it is not usually permissible for party that called the witness to attempt to impeach him. This means that a previous inconsistent statement will be inadmissible. Of course, the calling party is entitled to call other witnesses whose view of events contradicts that of the unfavourable witness.
However, if a witness is not merely unfavourable, but gives testimony that is adverse to the party who called him, leave of the court may be sought to have the witness declared hostile (see HostileWitness).
| Search |
| Shameless plug |
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK |
| Editorial |
So you want to be a university lecturer? Read this first! Speak like your boss: new developments in managerese |
| Computing features |
|
File handling in the Linux kernel: an in-depth look at how Linux handles files, filesystems, and file I/O
All sorts of Linux stuff Confused about CLASSPATH? answers are here First steps in EJB using jBoss (recently revised for jBoss 3.2) |