The Whole Truth ?
What the soldier said is not admissible evi• dence, as every good litigant knows: but we may at last be on the point of finding out what he did say. A couple of law- reform committees have been set by the Government (as a sort of Parthian shot) the task of scrutinising and, it necessary, modernising the rules of evidence both in criminal and civil cases. The most notorious of these, the rule against hearsay evidence, has always been a mystery to everyone but lawyers. Many a witness, suddenly silenced by its'appli- cation, has left the box wondering whether he has just taken part in some sort of abstruse game. But, in fact, the rule can trace its birth to the determination of judges to be fair to those who cannot answer back. In effect, the hearsay rule prevents a witness from telling the judge what he said to someone or someone said to him to the detriment of a third person—if that third person was not present at the time of the conversation to deny what was being said about him. The advantages of this unique procedure are somewhat unpredictable. Sometimes it is nothing but a tiresome obstacle which can be deftly over- come by skilful questioning on the part of a clever lawyer. But it can genuinely protect the innocent from the dangerous workings of fantasy and malice. The dilemma is not easily resolved. Is it more important that a trial should unearth the whole truth about an incident by methods which may increase the possibilities of injustice?
Or is the old-fashioned insistence on fair play, even if a wrong 'un gets away, to continue? The ancient rule is now on trial for its life. What- ever the verdict, lawyers I have talked to feel
Previous page
