Analysis of s114 (1) Criminal Justice Act 2003
S114(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 stated that, hearsay in criminal proceeding is in " Criminal proceeding statement not made in oral evidence in proceeding is admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if ....... "
What is " statement" 
Based on statutory provision of s115(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003, statement is a representation of fact or opinion made by a person in whatever means which may include photofit, sketch or other pictorial form. 
Based on common law rule of the case of Chandrasekera v R , in this case, the victim of the attack was unable to talk due to the injury sustained and therefore uses a sign to indicate the responsible defendant. The privy council later held that the rule against hearsay is still applicable in this case. 

Admissibility of the Hearsay Evidence
Based on section 114(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 , hearsay in criminal proceeding is in " criminal proceeding, a statement made not in oral evidence in proceeding admissible as evidence of any matter stated if, but only if ......."
a) statutory provisions which make it admissible as dictated in s116 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. 
b) any common law rule which is preserved by s118 Criminal Justice Act 2003
c) hearsay is admissible based on the agreement of the prosecution, accused and co accused. 
d) due to the safety valve exception where the court is satisfied to admit hearsay evidence for the interest of justice. 

The Rationale of the Rule Against Hearsay 
Hearsay is not considered the best evidence. 
This is baed on the fact that the statement is not given under oath. 
In this case the demeanour of the witness could not be identified. 
​The person who make the statement cannot be cross examined. 

Comparison between Hearsay and Direct evidence 
Direct evidence is the evidence from the witness who perceived the relevant act himself. 
For instance, X was charged with theft of book from the bookstores. 
Y told Z that he saw X stealing the book. 
The prosecution cannot called Z to testify that Y told him that he saw X stealing the book.
The correct approach is for the prosecution to call Y to give direct evidence of what he saw and believed. 

Rule Against Hearsay 
Any fact asserted other than the one made by the person while giving oral evidence in proceeding appears to be inadmissible as any evidence of the assertion of the fact. 

What is Hearsay ? 
The definition of hearsay is based on section 114(1) Criminal Justice Act 2003 which states that hearsay in criminal proceeding is the statement not made in oral evidence in proceedings that is evidence of any matter stated

Direct evidence refers to the witness testimony based on his or her perception by his or her senses such as hearing or sight of the facts in issue.
However, direct evidence, may also include presentation of things or documents to the tribunal of fact.
The tribunal of fact may be asked to act on its own perception of the quality and nature of the things or document.
Direct evidence especially the one related to the testimony of the witness in relation to the facts in issue may lead to issue regarding the credibility and reliability of the witness. 
The issue of relevance is not importance in this case.

What is evidentiary facts ? 
Evidentiary facts are known as facts relevant to the facts in issue.
Evidentiary facts are related to the logical inference to proof the facts in issue.
Evidentiary facts will prove the facts in issue.
Evidentiary facts are the second category of the objects of proof.
Evidentiary facts are referred to 'factum probandum' or a fact offered to prove another fact.
The common example of evidentiary fact include the absence or presence of the motive on the part of the defendant who committed the offence.
Motive is not an element of the offence. Motive is considered to provide explanation or sense of reasons for criminal activity.
Despite being not part of the elements of the offence, motive is important in raising the probability of the fact that the defendant did commit the offence.
Evidentiary facts may be proved by evidence.
In cases where the evidentiary fact are not judicial noticed or formally admitted.
The evidence may include, real evidence, documentary evidence and testimony evidence.
If for example, the existence of the defendant's alleged motive were disputed, the evidentiary facts must be suggestive of the present of the motive.
As a result, evidentiary facts may stand as an object of proof and means of proving the fact in issue. 

Facts in issue are also called material facts or ' facta probanda' the latin term. 
The facts in issue are essential facts which parties need to prove. 
In civil cases, the facts in issue comprise the cause of action. 
For instance, the civil claims may include claiming for damages in term of injustice caused by defendant's negligence.
The facts in issue will focus on the questions of law or questions of fact.
In term of questions of law, it includes for instance the defendant duty of care to the claimant where the parties need to bring agreement.
The issue whether the defendant breach the duty of care is considered a question of fact.
In this case, by the rules of court, it is required for the claimant to specify the particulars of the claim of the precise respect where the negligence can be linked to the defendant. 
Any formally denial of negligence by the defendant on the ground of defence, will cause the claimant to adduce evidence to prove at least one of the alleged particulars of negligence. 
Based on what is admitted and denied by the defendant in the defence, the fact that the defendant's negligence caused injury to the claimant need to be proved by the claimant as a fact.
The claimant also need to prove the nature of injuries, the extent of injuries and any amount of special damages. 
The defendant would need to adduce the evidence to prove the issue if the defendant alleged contributory negligence is denied by the claimant. 
In criminal cases, the facts in issues are facts which constitute the offence charged in a criminal cases and also facts which the defendant must prove to establish the defence. 
In civil or criminal cases, the facts in issue are considered by referring to the substantive law and the statement of the case which includes the indictment, written charges or information in the criminal proceeding.
In civil cases, the substantive law will determine the elements of the cause of action and classification of the issues into issue of law. 
The statements of case will determine the type of questions of fact which are actually in dispute.
In criminal cases, the substantive law will determine the elements of the offence charged and the defence of the accused.
The indictment, written charges and information will provide allegations of fact which constitute the offence. 
Previously, defendant had no obligation to admit or to deny the allegation of prosecution. 
Currently, there is a statutory obligation based on s5 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 which allows the defendant to provide the defence statement in specific condition which indicates the nature of defence, postulating matters of fact where the defendant takes issue with the prosecution and reason why.
During trial, the defendant may plead guilty or not guilty of charges. 
If there is a plea of not guilty, everything will be in issue and it will be the task of the prosecution to prove the whole of their case, which include the identification of the accused, the nature of the accused' act and the intention and knowledge of the accused.
The prosecution must also proved the non existence of the defence if there is a possibility of evidence sufficiency enough to raise the existence.
For instance, in a murder case, the defendant plead not guilty. 
Then, the prosecution, must prove that it was the accused who killed the victim unlawfully ( actus reus) with the intention and necessary mind to do so ( mens rea). 
In the case of murder, it is the malice aforethought which is the intention to kill or cause serious harm which need to be considered. 
Despite, the present of evidence that the offence took place as acting lawful in self defence. 
Despite, the present of evidence that the defence of lawful self defence has been disclosed. 
It is the job of the prosecution to rebut the lawful defence which has been disclosed. 

In general objects of proof may refer to facts in legal proceedings where evidence can be properly adduced. 
The objects of proof may include facts in issue and evidentiary facts. 
Facts in issue are known as material facts while evidentiary facts are known as facts relevant to the facts in issue.