Principles and Procedures to Admit and Exclude Evidence

Introduction

This chapter examines two of the most heavily tested topics in the FLK2 evidence syllabus: **hearsay evidence** and **confession evidence**. Hearsay — an out-of-court statement tendered to prove the truth of its contents — is **generally inadmissible** unless it passes through one of the **four gateways** in **s. 114(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 ('CJA 2003')**. Confessions are governed by the **Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 ('PACE 1984')**: a confession is admissible unless it must be **excluded** under the **mandatory rule in s. 76(2)** (oppression or unreliability) or the court exercises its **discretion to exclude** under **s. 78**. You must be able to identify the correct statutory provision, cite the section number, and **apply the test** to a client scenario.

Assessment focus

For the SQE1 FLK2 assessment, hearsay and confession evidence are examined through **single best answer questions (SBAQs)** set in realistic criminal-practice scenarios. You will be expected to **identify the correct hearsay gateway** (most commonly **s. 116** unavailable witness — especially the **'fear'** ground under s. 116(2)(e) — and the **s. 114(1)(d)** interests-of-justice safety valve), and to **distinguish mandatory exclusion of a confession under s. 76(2) PACE 1984** from the **discretionary exclusion** available under **s. 78 PACE 1984**. Key recurring points are: the **two limbs of s. 76(2)** (oppression versus unreliability); the **burden on the prosecution to prove admissibility beyond reasonable doubt**; the treatment of **mixed statements** under **R v Sharp [1988] 1 WLR 7**; and the **objective, hypothetical test** for unreliability. This is a closed-book assessment — ensure you can recall the section numbers, the leading authorities and the tests from memory.

Study tips

1) Memorise the **four hearsay gateways** in **s. 114(1) CJA 2003**: (a) statutory provision; (b) preserved common law rule; (c) all parties agree; (d) interests of justice. 2) For **s. 116**, learn the **five grounds** (dead, unfit, overseas, unfindable, fear) — only **fear** (s. 116(2)(e)) requires **court leave plus an interests-of-justice assessment**. 3) Distinguish the **two limbs of s. 76(2) PACE**: **(a) oppression** needs **impropriety** (R v Fulling [1987] QB 426); **(b) unreliability** needs **no impropriety** and uses an **objective, hypothetical** test. 4) Remember the **burden** under s. 76(2) is on the **prosecution** to prove admissibility **beyond reasonable doubt** once the defence raises the issue — and exclusion is **mandatory** (no discretion). 5) Treat **s. 78** as the **discretionary fallback**: wider than s. 76 (any prosecution evidence, no causal link required), used for **PACE / Codes breaches** such as denial of legal advice (s. 58). 6) For a **mixed statement**, both the **adverse and exculpatory** parts are evidence of the **truth** of their contents (**R v Sharp**).