The Lechmere/Cross "name issue"

[Fisherman]

In this debate, poster "Harry" has claimed that newspaper articles cannot be evidence, since they instead are nothing but "information". Like books, Harry tells us.

When somebody who has apparently not followed the debate takes it upon himself to say that it is meaningless to claim that newspaper articles CAN work as evidence, that sort of falls short of that particular discussion.

Like I said, I REALLY have nothing much more to add.

I am sure others have, though.

[David Orsam]

A quick googling (which is how far my legal insights reach) tells me that newspaper evidence is sometimes allowed, sometimes not.

Saying that "newspaper evidence" is "sometimes allowed" is totally meaningless.

It all depends on what it is supposed to be proving and in what circumstances.

[Fisherman]

Yes, David, as regards a criminal trial I would agree. However, in respect of legal proceedings, it might be admissible evidence in a civil case, i.e. in respect of a tortuous action for damages in respect of assault and battery.

A quick googling (which is how far my legal insights reach) tells me that newspaper evidence is sometimes allowed, sometimes not. On a site where (US) lawyers discuss the issue, one such lawyer starts out by saying "If it is relevant and it is not hearsay, it may be admissible" and ends by stating "In short, these are matters that no one except a lawyer should try to deal with because they require in-depth knowledge of the law of evidence."

It would seem that our learned friend thinks himself better equipped to decide this - and I am not ruling out that he may be - but as far as I am concerned, I´m going with the professional view, suspecting that British law will not differ very much on the point.

Not that it matters, since there will be no trial. All we can do is to recognize the article as evidence, although not of the highest order, and work from that point of view.

I have nothing much more to say about the matter.

[David Orsam]

Yes, David, as regards a criminal trial I would agree. However, in respect of legal proceedings, it might be admissible evidence in a civil case, i.e. in respect of a tortuous action for damages in respect of assault and battery.

I disagree. A judge would certainly rule it inadmissible in a civil case as evidence against Lechmere. Not because of hearsay but because it is not a document capable of being admitted as evidence to prove what Paul said.

But the issue I am addressing is whether Scobie could take it into account as evidence in saying that there was sufficient evidence to charge Lechmere. Plainly he could not.

As evidence in an internet debate, however, I don't have any problem calling it "evidence".

[John G]

John, hearsay would be if the journalist attempted to give evidence about what Paul had said to him, to stand as evidence as what Paul had seen, heard or done. The newspaper article itself doesn't even get that far because it's not a category of document capable of being admissible on its own.

I'm not sure why you are referring to legal proceedings in a civil court in any case. We are talking about (and I certainly was) whether the newspaper article would have been admissible in a criminal trial. It would not.

Yes, David, as regards a criminal trial I would agree. However, in respect of legal proceedings, it might be admissible evidence in a civil case, i.e. in respect of a tortuous action for damages in respect of assault and battery.