Has the Criminal Justice Act 2003 effectively removed the rule against Essay

Has the iniquitous Justice achievement 2003 effectively removed the rule against the admission of hearsay evidence - Essay ExampleDiscussion The Criminal Justice Act 2003 states, as a general rule, that hearsay in allowable. Section 114 (1) states that in criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral in evidence is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if, then it goes on to outline 4 different exceptions.1 One exception is for when any provision, whether in this chapter or in any other(a) rule makes the statement admissible.2 Another exception is when any rule of law preserved by section 118 makes it admissible.3 The other exception is when the parties agree to the admissibility of the statement.4 The fourth and final exception is when the cost is satisfied that it is in the best reside of justice for it to be admissible.5 Further, the Act carves out exceptions for when a run into is out of stock(predicate). In this case, hearsay is admissible if the statement that the inaccessible come across would give would be deemed admissible as evidence6 the mortal who made the statement has been identified to the satisfaction of the court7 and that the witness is unavailable according to atomic number 23 different criteria.8 The criteria are that the witness must either be dead, unfit, outside the UK, cannot be found, or is in fear.9 More problematic are the categories that state that a judge can use his or her judgement in deciding whether to admit the statement, and when the witness is unavailable. When the witness is unavailable, then the defendant cannot cross-examine the witness. This would be fundamentally partial to the defendant. A prosecutor should make every effort to bring witnesses into court so that he or she whitethorn be cross-examined, and the statutory provisions that are used for determining whether a witness is unavailable seem in like manner broad. One of the provisions states that a witness may be unavailable because of fear. frightin this case may either be fear for that persons life or another persons life, or it may be fear of financial loss. It seems that it would be too simple for a witness to use this excuse. Most witnesses have jobs, and these jobs are not always perceptiveness about having to take off of word to testify. Therefore, the witness can state that he or she is unavailable because of fear of financial loss, and then that witness statement can be introduced as evidence against the defendant, without the defendant being able to cross-examine. This rule seems to be weighted in favor of the prosecution, because it seems that virtually any witness can be unavailable under this particular section of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Further, if the witness cannot be on the stand because the trial occurs on a workday, and that person could be fired, then it should be the prosecutors responsibility to have secured the statement, through a deposition, on a date that was satisfa ctory for the witness. This exception does not put the responsibility on the prosecutor to secure the statement, so this is another flaw. Moreover, although the court has guidelines as to when it can accept a statement under these conditions, these guidelines are rather vague. The judge may accept the statement if the statement should be admitted in the interests of justice,