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.