Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sezzy
Agreed...you don't have the physical proof that he's committed a drink driving offence, except what you've overheard, which is technically heresay. ...
|
No it isnt. When someone else tells you what they heard and you repeat it as if it was proof, that is hearsay. As an example, if one of us readers here were to use the OPs observations as evidence, we would be engaging in hearsay. But the
OP is directly relaying his own observations which is eyewitness testimony, if this was a court. What he overheard the police say would be hearsay, but given the police would be available to cross examine, that would likely be excluded from the hearsay rule.
To paraphrase (I dont recall it in detail) a standard example.
Tom Thumb cant lead evidence that Thumbellina told him that she saw Jill push Jack down the hill. However, Thumbellina can speak of what she heard Jill say to Jack before and after she pushed him, as she was a witness to that and can be cross examined on that assertion.
Tom would simply be repeating what he heard someone else say about an event, he has no evidence to be cross examined except whether or not he was told it, but has no value as a witness toward proving if the event took place as he heard it.
However, if Jill was suing Thumbellina for defamation, then Toms evidence would not be hearsay.