The admissibility of the copy of the letter from the bank and the evidence from Mr Ears will depend on the applicable rules of evidence in the jurisdiction where the investigation is taking place. However, several general considerations come into play when determining the admissibility of evidence:
1. Hearsay: Hearsay refers to an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. In this case, the letter from the bank is a hearsay statement as it is a statement made by the bank manager and offered to prove the contents of the letter. Generally, hearsay evidence is considered inadmissible unless it falls within an exception. One such exception is the business records exception, which allows for the admission of records made in the regular course of business, such as bank statements. Therefore, if the copy of the letter qualifies as a business record, it may be admissible.
2. Authentication: The copy of the letter from the bank and Mr Ears' evidence will need to be properly authenticated. Authentication involves providing evidence that the document or testimony is what it purports to be. This can be done through witness testimony or other corroborating evidence.
3. Best Evidence Rule: The Best Evidence Rule states that the original of a document should be produced as evidence when its content is sought to be proved, unless a satisfactory reason for its absence is provided. In this case, the suspect claims to have lost the original letter from the bank. If the court finds this to be a satisfactory reason, the copy of the letter may be admissible under the Best Evidence Rule.
4. Relevance: The evidence must be relevant to the issues at hand. If the content of the letter and Mr Ears' testimony are relevant to proving the suspicious circumstances surrounding the loss of money, they may be admissible.
5. Other potential considerations: Additional considerations may include the credibility and reliability of the evidence, any potential hearsay exceptions that may apply, and the rules of procedure and evidence specific to the jurisdiction where the investigation is taking place.
It is important to note that the above analysis is a general overview and the admissibility of the evidence ultimately depends on the specific facts and applicable laws of the jurisdiction. Legal advice should be sought to determine the admissibility of evidence in a particular case.
(a) You are asked by company XYZ Pty Ltd to investigate Mr Long Fingers, for the loss
of money under suspicious circumstances. Evidence obtained is a photostat copy of a
letter to the suspect (Long Fingers) by his bank manager, enquiring about a large
amount of cash that was deposited. There was also a person (Ms Sharp), who had
read the original letter before handing it to the suspect. A day before she passed away,
(Ms Sharp) told another person (Mr Ears) about it. You asked the suspect for the
original letter from the bank, but his answer was that he had lost it. On which terms will
the copy of the letter from the bank and the evidence from (Mr Ears) be admissible?
1 answer