Distinguishing Hearsay and Real Evidence: The People (Dpp) v McD
Date | 01 January 2017 |
Author | Finn M. Keyes |
107
Distinguishing Hearsay and Real Evidence: e
People (DPP) v McD
FINN M. KEYES
Introduction
e problem of distinguishing hearsay and non-hearsay statements is an ever-
present headache for judges and lawyers. While the rule against hearsay can be
relatively simply dened as “a statement other than one made by a person while
giving oral evidence in the proceedings [is] inadmissible as evidence of any fact
stated,”1 such a denition belies the rule’s notoriously fraught practical application.
When a novel or dicult set of facts presents itself, even judges of great experience
can struggle to identify hearsay from original evidence or real evidence. It is
therefore unsurprising that a signicant amount of academic commentary has
sprung forth to attempt to provide assistance.2 However, while a great deal has been
written of the distinction between hearsay and original evidence, most notably in
the context of implied assertions,3 comparatively little consideration has been given
to the fault line of hearsay and real evidence.
e decision of the Supreme Court in e People (DPP) v McD,4 and particularly
the detailed and scholarly analysis of the question by McKechnie J, is therefore a
welcome contribution to the law. is case note will discuss the relative uncertainty
which obtained in relation to the hearsay status of electronic recordings prior
to McD before considering the extent to which the judgment has claried the
position. It is argued that while McD provides us with a clear exposition of the
legal foundations and justication underlying the practice, its analysis as to how it
should operate is awed in some respects.
1C. Tapper, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 12th edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010) at pp.
551–552
2See Stephen Guest, “e Scope of the Hearsay Rule” (1985) 10 L.Q.R. 385; Morgan, “Hearsay and
Non-Hearsay” (1935) 48 Harv. L. Rev 1138; Lawrence Tribe, “Triangulating Hearsay” (1974) 87
Harv. L. Rev. 957. e Law Reform Commission also discusses how hearsay and original evidence
may be distinguished in its Report on Consolidation and Reform of Aspects of the Law of Evidence
(LRC–117 2016) at pp. 29-33
3Allan, “Implied Assertions as Hearsay” (1992) N.L.J. 142; Colin Tapper, “Hearsay and Implied
Assertions”(1992) 109 L.Q.R 524; Falknor, “e “Hear-Say” Rule as a “See-Do” Rule: Evidence of
Conduct” (1961) 33 Rocky Mt. L. Rev. 133
4e People (DPP) v McD[2016] I.E.S.C. 71
06 Keyes.indd 10730/05/2017 16:34
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
