R v Kearley
Telephone calls and visits by people asking to buy drugs from the defendant were inadmissible hearsay as implied assertions that he was a drug dealer, a decision reversed by the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
Facts
The police searched Mr Kearley's flat and found small quantities of drugs. While they were there, they answered a number of telephone calls, and received several visitors, asking to buy drugs from him. None of the callers or visitors was called as a witness. The prosecution relied on the requests as evidence that Mr Kearley was a drug dealer, and he was convicted of possession with intent to supply.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held, by a majority, that the evidence was inadmissible. Lord Bridge said that the requests were relevant only as implied assertions by the callers that Mr Kearley was a supplier of drugs, and that such implied assertions were subject to the hearsay rule in the same way as express assertions. The evidence was therefore inadmissible hearsay. The decision was criticised, and under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, a statement is now hearsay only if one of the purposes of the person making it appears to have been to cause another person to believe the matter stated, so implied assertions of this kind are no longer hearsay.
Related cases on hearsay
- Al-Khawaja and Tahery v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 23
- Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions [1965] AC 1001
- R v Andrews [1987] AC 281
- R v Blastland [1986] AC 41
- R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] 2 AC 373
- R v Riat [2012] EWCA Crim 1509
- R v Y [2008] EWCA Crim 10
- Ratten v The Queen [1972] AC 378
Studying evidence? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
