| 单词 | Prior inconsistent statement |
| 释义 | 先前的不相符陳述 A previous representation of a witness that is inconsistent with evidence given by that witness. Before the court may make any use of the previous inconsistent statement, it must be proved: Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) ss 13, 14; R v Mak Sau Leung [1995] 2 HKC 386 (HC). In criminal cases a previous inconsistent statement when proved is not evidence of the facts stated in it (R v Oliva [1965] 3 All ER 116, 1 WLR 1028 (CCA)), it may be used only for the purpose of discrediting the witness: R v O’Neill [1969] Crim LR 260 (CA). The rule is different in civil cases, where the law on hearsay evidence does not authorise the adducing of evidence of a previous inconsistent or contradictory statement otherwise than in accordance with the Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) s 12: Evidence Ordinance (Cap 8) s 51(4). Prosecution has a duty to disclose previous inconsistent statements: Berry v R [1992] 2 AC 364, 3 All ER 881 (PC). Failure of prosecution to disclose previous inconsistent statement amounts to material irregularity: R v Taylor (1993) 98 Cr App Rep 361 (CA). To achieve a fair and effective cross-examination on inconsistent statements in any case of any complexity, the proper way was to let the jury or a judge see the statements: R v Yip Chi Keung [1988] 1 HKLR 229. Also known as ‘Previous inconsistent statement’. See also Prior consistent statement. 證人以往所作出的與他本人所作的證據不相符的陳述。在法庭使用先前的不相符陳述前，必須提供證明：《證據條例》（第8章）第13、14條；R v Mak Sau Leung [1995] 2 HKC 386 （高等法院）。在刑事案件中，以往的不相符陳述的證明，並非對其所包含的事實的證據： R v Oliva [1965] 3 All ER 116, 1 WLR 1028 （英國上訴法院）。它僅可用作使證人不可信： R v O’Neill [1969] Crim LR 260 （英國上訴法院）。民事法律程序的規則則有所不同，傳聞證據規則並不授權援引關於以往所作出的不相符或互相矛盾的陳述的證據，但按照《證據條例》（第8章）第12條而援引者除外：《證據條例》（第8章）第51(4)條。控方沒有披露以往所作出的不相符陳述會構成關鍵性的欠妥之處：R v Taylor (1993) 98 Cr App Rep 361 （英國上訴法院）。在不同複雜程度的案件中，要公平及有效地就不相符陳述作出盤問，正當的方法乃讓陪審團或法官看該不相符的陳述： R v Yip Chi Keung [1988] 1 HKLR 229。另見 Prior consistent statement。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。