Contents
Volume 11 Number 2 2007
ISSN: 1365-7127 eISSN: 1740-5572
Show list with all abstracts • Links to other issues
Articles
Improperly obtained evidence in the Commonwealth: lessons for England and Wales?
Andrew L.-T. Choo and Susan Nash
75
[close]
(2007) 11 E & P 75
Improperly obtained evidence in the Commonwealth: lessons for England and Wales?
Andrew L.-T. Choo and Susan Nash
English law’s traditional approach to the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence is currently being rethought in response to a range of domestic and international pressures. With the position in England and Wales following the House of Lords’ decision in A and Others (2005) firmly in mind, this article undertakes a selective review of comparative approaches to the admissibility of improperly obtained evidence in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Having analysed relevant legislation and case law in each jurisdiction, general principles are derived to guide future developments in English law, in conformity with the European Convention on Human Rights.
[close]
The common enterprise exception to the hearsay rule
Keith Spencer
106
[close]
(2007) 11 E & P 106
The common enterprise exception to the hearsay rule
Keith Spencer
This article undertakes a comparative examination of the common enterprise exception to the hearsay rule, in order to paint a clear picture of the requirements and functioning of the rule in England and Wales. Four possible underlying rationales for the common enterprise exception—agency, res gestae, admissions and necessity—are first identified and evaluated. The doctrinal parameters of the exception are then explored, in terms of its three principal elements: the furtherance, pendency, and independent evidence requirements. Different mutations of the rule across various common law jurisdictions, particularly Canada and the United States, are considered. Finally, an exploration of subsidiary issues such as the required order of proof, the operation of the rule in relation to acquitted conspirators, and the conjunction of conspiracy counts with related substantive charges serves to underline the tensions between this traditional exception to the hearsay rule and legislatively enshrined guarantees of fair trial.
[close]
Case Note
Facts relevant to the assessment of damages in defamation: Turner v News Group Newspapers Ltd
Roderick Bagshaw
134
Noticeboard 139

