(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?
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.
To determine the admissibility of the copy of the letter from the bank and the evidence from Mr. Ears, we need to consider the rules of evidence. These rules can vary depending on the jurisdiction, so it's important to consult the applicable laws. However, I can provide a general analysis of the situation:
1. Copy of the letter from the bank:
The admissibility of a copy of a document depends on whether it satisfies the requirements of the best evidence rule. Under this rule, the original document is generally preferred as evidence. However, if the original document is unavailable, a duplicate or a certified copy may be admissible. Therefore, the copy of the letter from the bank may be admissible if it can be shown that the original is lost or unavailable.
2. Evidence from Mr. Ears:
The admissibility of evidence from Mr. Ears depends on the hearsay rule. Hearsay is generally defined as an out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Hearsay is inadmissible unless it falls within a recognized exception. One well-known exception is the dying declaration, which allows statements made by a person who believes their death is imminent to be admissible as evidence. Therefore, if it can be established that Ms. Sharp made the statement to Mr. Ears on the day before she passed away and she believed her death was imminent, Mr. Ears' testimony about what she said may be admissible as a dying declaration.
It should be noted, however, that the specific details of the case, such as any applicable laws, rules of evidence, and the circumstances surrounding the evidence, may affect the admissibility analysis. Therefore, it is advisable to consult with a legal professional to get accurate guidance for your jurisdiction.