Abiblo Law - Abduction 
Abduction is the wrongfully detaining or taking away another person by fraud or force. 

Admission - Personal Knowledge
In case of Hubert,defendant was charged with handling stolen goods. The admission that she was told that the good were stolen was inadmissible as it is an admission based on hearsay which does not prove the truth of what has been admitted. Therefore inadmissible. 

Comptroller of Custom v Western Electric Union Ltd
The information relied by the defendant in making his admission was hearsay as it consists of marking on the goods indicating different country origin from the one stated by the defendant. 
Defendant admission of falsely described the country of origin of certain group was considered hearsay. 
Lord Hodson, if man admit something which he does not know, it is of no real evidence. 

Probative value of the interest shown by the party on its statement. 
Rv McIntosh 
The interest shown by a party may be probative in a statement regardless of the truth of its contents. 
In this case, the defendant was charged with importation of cocaine and was arrested in his house. 
In a chimney a piece of paper which shown the calculation and weight of the drugs was found by the police. 
The handwriting was not of the defendant. 
The Court of Appeal held that the evidence was admissible. 
The purpose of adducing the evidence was not to show that / the truth of the content but the fact that is shows that the defendant had interest in the information contained in it. 
This strengthen the fact that he had interest in drug importation. However, it was not necessary to prove that the calculation was accurate. 

The hearsay rule works only against the process of establishing the truth of the assertion.If statement was adducted to show that it was false then the statement did not come within the hearsay rule. 
Mawaz Khan v R 
2 defendants prosecuted for murder. Circumstantial evidence related them to the scene of the crime. Prosecution also relied on the fact that the statement creating false alibi was made by them to the police. Prosecution rely on the false alibi , so that the jury could infer a joint attempt to set up a false alibi and joint guilt. 
The trial judge considered both statements were admissible against both defendant. 
Statement adduced by the prosecution to show false contents did not come under the rule against hearsay. 

Statement as original evidence 
Party may adduce statement which was out of the court with some other reasons but not to established the truth of the statement. 
The statement will not be caught under the rule against hearsay. 
Therefore the statement will be admissible as original evidence as the relevant is not the truth of the statement but the fact that the statement was made.  
Case Law example : 
Subramaniam v PP
The defendant was prosecuted for owning an ammunition which is against the emergency regulation. 
The defendant produced a defence of duress as he was being caught by the terrorist. 
The evidence was provided where he was captured and forced to follow the terrorist. The trial judge ruled out that it was hearsay evidence and was inadmissible for any evidence relating to his conversation with the terrorist. 
The defendant was convicted but appealed. 
The Privy Council ruled that trial judge had been wrong and allowed the appeal. 
The Council emphasised that, evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person whom is not a witness may fall into hearsay. 
It is hearsay, if the object of the evidence was to establish the truth of the content of the statement. 
However, it is not hearsay, if the object of the evidence was to proposed that the fact of the statement was made and not to establish the truth of the content. 
The fact that the statement was relevant in considering the conduct and mental states of the witness or other persons in whose present the statement was made. 
In Subramaniam, the statement made might have affected his mind by causing him to believe that he would be killed if being disobeyed by their rules. The evidence will support his defence of duress. 

Prove the truth of the Content
Rule against hearsay 
The item of evidence would only be excluded if the purpose of adducing such evidence is to establish the truth of the fact stated. 
Sparks v R
Defendant was charged with indecent assault of 4 years old girl. The mother while giving evidence at a preliminary hearing said that her daughter indicated that she had been taken out by the car by the person who assaulted her. The mother asked for the features of the person and the daughter told that he was a coloured boy. The girl was not giving evidence in court due to age. 
The evidence of the matter was inadmissible as infringing hearsay rules. As a result the defendant who was caucasian was convicted and appealed. He contended that it was unjust for the jury to be misguided and left with no ideas about the identity of the assailant. 
The defendant was relying on that statement for the truth of what she had asserted and hearsay rule applied. 
Privy council upheld the ruling of the judge. 
However, today, such statement is admissible under s114(d) Criminal Justice Act 2003.

Hearsay Rule on Machine.
The old rules against hearsay did not include tapes, film or still photographs which directly recorded the incident under investIgation. For instance, in the case of R v Dobson and Taylor v Chief Constable of Cheshire. 
In R v Dobson, the film from security camera operating during the time of robbery was admitted. 
In Taylor v Chief Constable of Cheshire, a video recording while an offence being committed was watched by the witnesses. The witnesses were allowed to give evidence of what they had seen in the tape which accidentally had been erased. This is based on the concept that the witness is in the same position as someone watching the commission of offence through the pair of binocular. 
Nowadays, the provision of hearsay rules only applicable for statements made by persons. The provisions are not applicable for statements produced by machine such as security camera video, films or tapes which operated automatically..

Implied Assertion Approach 
R v Twists and Others [2011] 
Court of Appeal strongly recommended avoidance of the usage of the concept of implied assertion as the Criminal Justice Act 2003 focusing on matter stated which need to be proven. The following suggestions are considered while considering whether hearsay rule applicable or not. 
a) recognising the relevant fact / matter to be sought
b) does the statement relating to the fact / matter to be sought contained in the communication 
c) if no there will be no issue of hearsay
d) if yes whether that was one of the purpose of the maker of the communication to cause others to believe the matter and acting upon it. In this case, it will account for hearsay. 

The statement and matter stated are the issues which enable the evidence to be admitted under the ground of the implied assertion 
The common law decision of the case of R v Kearley [1992] was reversed due to the effect of the implied assertion. 
In this case, police answered the personal call and telephone call from people asking about drugs that the defendant had for sale. 
Prosecution wanted to adduce evidence to prove that the call's recipient was a drug dealers without evidence from the callers. 
The House Of Lords later held that the caller's words were hearsay and therefore inadmissible. 
Later the decision, was reversed due to the fact that words of the caller do not fall within the meaning of any matter stated as the purpose of the calls was not to cause others to believe that he is a drug dealer but simply to request for drugs.  ( R v Chrysostomou [2010], R v MK [2007] and R v Singh [2006].
The message did not consists or contain statement that he was a drug dealer for others to believe. Even it could be said that it may amount to an implied assertion that he was but his purpose was not to cause other to believe that he was a drug dealer. 
The message justified that there was an existing relationship between buyer ( sender) and seller ( defendant).

''Matter stated " 
s114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides definition of hearsay which mean in criminal proceeding, statement not made in oral evidence in proceeding admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if .....
The main issue here is what account for " matter stated " 
Based on the statutory provision under s115(3) Criminal Justice Act 2003 matter stated is the purpose or one of the purposes of the person making the statement appear to the court to have cause another person to act or machine to operate based on that matter.