Dying declaration

MagicSean

Does anyone know of any cases where a dying declaration was used as evidence?

Alpha99

I think R. v Davis (Iain) House of Lords, 18 June 2008 discusses it to some extent. I can find some US cases which will directly deal with the topic if you like.

MagicSean

I was curious as to how modern technology would affect it. Do you think a dying declaration recorded by a garda on his camera phone would be admissable?

GerardKeating

k_mac wrote: »

I was curious as to how modern technology would affect it. Do you think a dying declaration recorded by a garda on his camera phone would be admissable?

An episode of Law & Order featured someone thing this last season, and while this is of course a fictional show, they tend to be reasonable accurate with with American legal precedent.

Alpha99

k_mac wrote: »

I was curious as to how modern technology would affect it. Do you think a dying declaration recorded by a garda on his camera phone would be admissable?

A dying delcaration is an exception to the rule against hearsay. A member of An Garda would be able to repeat the assertions of the declarant in court provided that the exception applies. I think the recordation of the declarant would raise other issues/exceptions unrelated to the dying declaration exception. This is my view on the matter, but I might be wrong.

seamus

Presumably any such declaration could be challenged on the basis that the person dying may not have been of sound mind and/or was under the influence of medication, thereby making them delirious or prone to coercion?

Bosco boy

seamus wrote: »

Presumably any such declaration could be challenged on the basis that the person dying may not have been of sound mind and/or was under the influence of medication, thereby making them delirious or prone to coercion?

yes! But it's pretty strong evidence given it's nature and would not be easily dismissed, especially if it ties in well with the suspect and the event. There isn't much point in lying and death staring you in the face, that's the principle on which it is allowed in evidence if I'm correct?

Ronald Sherrif

k_mac wrote: »

I was curious as to how modern technology would affect it. Do you think a dying declaration recorded by a garda on his camera phone would be admissable?

The way it might be admitted would be by the Garda, saying what he heard, and offering the recording and his written notes as contemporaneous notes.
The recording on the camera phone would be accepted as a back up to the written notes. The garda would be able to prove the recording by saying that he made it himself.

Alpha99

seamus wrote: »

Presumably any such declaration could be challenged on the basis that the person dying may not have been of sound mind and/or was under the influence of medication, thereby making them delirious or prone to coercion?

These issues go to the weight and credibility of the evidence and not the admissibility of the evidence. If the exception applies, the evidence would be admitted.

Bosco boy

Ronald Sherrif wrote: »

The way it might be admitted would be by the Garda, saying what he heard, and offering the recording and his written notes as contemporaneous notes.
The recording on the camera phone would be accepted as a back up to the written notes. The garda would be able to prove the recording by saying that he made it himself.

The garda's oral evidence might be referred to as primary evidence and the recording as secondary evidence, I might be wrong!

Jo King

They are both the same evidence. The issue is one of credibility. If a garda gives evidence that something happened, the credibility is bolstered by saying that he took a written note of the incident at the time, and allowing the note to be inspected. The like situation applies to an electronic recording. Credibility is boosted by the garda being able to say, "of course I am sure that is what the person said, listen for yourself".
Take an example involving a will. The testatrix wished to make a bequest to her niece Joan. The solicitor dictated the request into a Dictaphone. The secretary typed John rather than Joan on the draft will. Solicitor does not notice the error and the testatrix signs the will with a bequest to John. Testatrix dies and Joan who has been told she will be looked after gets zero.
It is easy in cross examination to suggest that someone's memory is faulty. Maybe that wasn't what the person said? Contemporaneous notes and recordings help resolve the matter.