Two English hearsay heresies

Abstract

<jats:p>Using comparative material from other common-law jurisdictions and Scotland, it is argued that two leading decisions of the House of Lords on the scope of the hearsay rule are erroneous. In R v Kearley, the House held that telephone requests by unknown persons for drugs made to the accused were inadmissible hearsay. In Blastland, on an appeal against a murder conviction, the House held that statements by a third person indicating that he knew of the victim's death before it became public knowledge were inadmissible. It is noted that the reform of hearsay in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 may have an impact on both rules, but it is submitted that this should not obscure the fundamental errors underpinning these decisions revealed by recourse to better reasoned decisions from other jurisdictions.</jats:p>