Piantadosi S. Crossover designs. Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Perspective. 2nd ed; 2005. p. 515–27. If the information is multiple hearsay then each person passing it on also received it in the course of their occupation, or as the holder of a paid or unpaid office: Section 117(2). Westfall J, Kenny DA, Judd CM. Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. J Exp Psychol Gen. 2014;143(5):2020. Hemming K, Haines TP, Chilton PJ, Girling AJ, Lilford RJ. The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2015;350. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h391. Ingersoll GL, Kirsch JC, Merk SE, Lightfoot J. Relationship of organizational culture and readiness for change to employee commitment to the organization. J Nurs Adm. 2000;30(1):11–20.

If there was such a statement, ask whether it was one of the purposes (not necessarily the only or dominant purpose) of the maker of the communication that the recipient, or any other person, should believe that matter or act upon it as true. If yes, it is hearsay. If no, it is not. There is no absolute principle that a conviction based solely or decisively on hearsay evidence is unfair as there are counter balancing measures in the hearsay framework of the CJA to make the trial fair ( R v Horncastle[2010] 2 AC 373 ).Judd CM, Westfall J, Kenny DA. Treating stimuli as a random factor in social psychology: a new and comprehensive solution to a pervasive but largely ignored problem. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;103(1):54. The last reason (in fear) cannot be used unless 1. the court considers that it is in the interests of justice to admit the statement and 2. the fear has not been provoked by the party seeking to adduce the evidence in question. In determining whether it is in the interests of justice to admit it, the court must have regard to any relevant circumstances including the statement's contents, the risk of unfairness and the availability of special measures ( section 116(4) CJA.) In Rv Riat [2012] EWCA 1509 the Court of Appeal emphasised the need for the judge to ensure that evidence of fear was rigorously tested and that all possibilities for the witness giving oral evidence were investigated. Although not proceedings "in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply" in proceedings under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where the admissibility of a statement or the weight to be attached to it are of importance and seriously disputed, the court may be assisted by considering the factors referred to section 114(2) CJA as well as section 116. Hearsay evidence is inadmissible in criminal proceedings except where there is some statutory provision which renders it admissible or where a common law rule making it admissible is preserved by section 118 CJA, or by agreement of all parties to the proceedings, or where the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for it to be admissible (section 114(1) CJA 2003).

LaRocca R, Yost J, Dobbins M, Ciliska D, Butt M. The effectiveness of knowledge translation strategies used in public health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:751. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-751. Statements in documents can be proved by producing the original document or an authenticated copy of it: Section 133.A statement made by a machine (e.g. a computer), which relies on information supplied by a person, is only admissible to the extent that the information provided was accurate: section 129(1). written notice is given of the intention to call the expert to give evidence based on the statement; and An example application of the counterbalanced implementation design is presented in a hypothetical study to demonstrate the comparison of ‘video-based’ and ‘written-based’ evidence summary research implementation strategies for changing clinical practice in community-acquired pneumonia and nutrition in critically ill patient health contexts. Conclusion Elshaug AG, Watt AM, Mundy L, Willis CD. Over 150 potentially low-value health care practices: an Australian study. Med J Aust. 2012;197(10):556–60.

The person who supplied the information contained in the statement had personal knowledge of the matters dealt with; and Wilson KM, Brady TJ, Lesesne C. An organizing framework for translation in public health: the knowledge to action framework. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011;8(2):A46.

Always wear eye protection

Although most often invoked in conspiracy cases, the rule is not limited to such cases but extends to any allegation of a common enterprise to commit an offence (as is indicated by the use in the statute of that phrase rather than specifically "conspiracy.") The admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal proceedings is set out in sections 114 and 136 of Chapter 2 Criminal Justice Act 2003 and applies to all criminal proceedings begun on or after 4th April 2005 (section 141 Criminal Justice Act 2003). Definitions Hearsay Most of the hearsay provisions apply equally to the defence and the prosecution, with the added safeguard for the defendant that any matters requiring proof must be proved to the criminal standard by the prosecution and on a balance of probabilities by the defence. Section 117 allows a statement contained in a business document to be admissible of any matter stated if:

The person supplying the information is the "relevant person," not the person who recorded the statement: Section 117(2)(b). Cases decided under section 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which was less clear on the point, should therefore be interpreted with this change in mind. There is no requirement under section 117 for any statement describing how the business documents relied upon was compiled. In R v O'Connor the Court of Appeal held that the court might draw an inference from the face of the documents themselves as to the criteria set out in section 117.

Want to stay up to date? Follow us!

Watson MC, Bond CM, Grimshaw JM, Mollison J, Ludbrook A, Walker AE. Educational strategies to promote evidence-based community pharmacy practice: a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). Fam Pract. 2002;19(5):529–36. Documents where these additional requirements must be met will include statements of fraud investigators and police officer's notes. However, it may be that the information upon which the fraud investigator bases their statement will be admissible, as much of that information may be contained in business documents admissible under section 117(2). Section 30 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Expert's report).Note the need for the report to comply with CrimPR 19.4 unless it is agreed. An SFR1 is not an expert's report compliant with CrimPR 19.4 for these purposes: Hunt v CPS [2018] EWHC 3341(Admin); In Al -Khawaja and Tahery v UK (judgment given 15.12.2011) the European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber held that a conviction based solely or decisively on evidence adduced from an absent witness does not automatically amount to a breach of the Convention. However, such cases must be subject to "the most searching scrutiny." The question for the court is whether there are sufficient counterbalancing factors in place, including measures that permit a fair and proper assessment of the reliability of that evidence to take place. The safeguards contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, supported by those in section 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and the common law are in principle strong safeguards designed to ensure fairness. If trial courts apply these properly and have regard to this Grand Chamber judgment and the decision of the Supreme Court in Horncastle, trials will be fair. For the interpretation of the similarly worded provisions as to "competence" under section 53 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 see DPP v R [2007] EWHC 1842 (Admin).