Joined in 2023 
82 
63 About this deal
In McEwan v DPP (2007) 171 JP 308 the Administrative Court described as "unwarranted" the justices' conclusion that a witness' chronic bowel condition made him unfit to give evidence, based on a doctor's letter which said that the stress of a court appearance might exacerbate his condition. 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).
Two potential priority health contexts for the implementation of research evidence in practice are ‘management of community-acquired pneumonia’ and ‘nutrition in critically ill patients’. Community-acquired pneumonia is the second highest cause of mortality globally [ 26]. Evidence suggests that corticosteroid therapy may reduce mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, hospital length of stay, time to clinical stability, and severe complications [ 27, 28, 29]. Despite these findings, poor adherence to guidelines for the use of corticosteroids to treat community-acquired pneumonia has been reported [ 9, 30]. A second health context where current practice does not always align with the most contemporaneous research is nutrition in critically ill patients. Despite guidelines recommending the provision of early enteral nutrition for critically ill patients [ 31, 32, 33, 34, 35], many do not receive adequate nutritional support [ 34, 35, 36]. Section 3 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 (copy of any entry in a banker's book evidence of the matters recorded therein.) This evidence will usually also be admissible under section 117 CJA (business documents) but prosecutors should be aware of the restrictions on compellability imposed by section 6: a bank officer cannot be compelled to give any evidence or produce any exhibit which could have been proved under the Act.ask whether there is a statement of that matter in the communication. If not, then no question of hearsay arises (whatever other matters may be contained in the communication); Whatever the reason for the absence of the witness, evidence relevant to the credibility or consistency of the maker of the statement may be admitted even where the evidence would not have been admissible had the witness given evidence in person.
Where the capability of the maker of the statement is challenged the issue must be resolved by hearing evidence (in the absence of a jury if there is one) and expert evidence is admissible. The burden of proof is on the party wishing to use the evidence and is on the balance of probabilities (section 123(4) CJA.) Credibility of the maker of the statement (S.124 CJA) Article 6(3) (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights states that a person charged with a criminal offence has a right "to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him". However, as decided by the Supreme Court in the case of Horncastle the safeguards built into existing English law (including those enacted in the CJA itself) are adequate to ensure that a defendant has a fair trial.See also Annex A for a table of exceptions under this section and potential challenges and Annex B for a list of useful cases with examples of statements held to be original evidence and not hearsay) S.117 Business Documents Incomplete counterbalanced measures designs are a compromise, designed to balance the strengths of counterbalancing with financial and practical reality. One such incomplete counterbalanced measures design is the Latin Square, which attempts to circumvent some of the complexities and keep the experiment to a reasonable size. the person does not give (or does not continue to give) oral evidence through fear: Section 116(2)(e). Kreymann KG, Berger MM, Deutz NE, Hiesmayr M, Jolliet P, Kazandjiev G, Nitenberg G, van den Berghe G, Wernerman J, Ebner C, et al. ESPEN Guidelines on Enteral Nutrition: intensive care. Clin Nutr. 2006;25(2):210–23.
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. The court may refuse to admit hearsay evidence under section 126 CJA if it is satisfied that the statement will result in undue waste of time which outweighs any benefit to be gained from admitting it. This provision applies to both prosecution and defence evidence. It is in addition to and does not revoke any other statutory or common law powers to exclude evidence. Expert evidence (S.127 CJA)
The court is satisfied that the value of the evidence in question, taking into account how reliable the statements appear to be, is so high that the interests of justice require the later statement to be admissible for that purpose. Courts have an express power to exclude hearsay evidence (section 126 CJA 2003) and to stop a case where hearsay evidence is unconvincing (section 125 CJA 2003). Words spoken by one defendant in pursuit of and for the purposes of advancing a common enterprise are admissible against all co-defendants alleged to be involved in the joint enterprise even where they are said in the absence of the co-accused. Although admissibility is generally automatic, there is limited discretion under Section 117(7) given to the court to exclude evidence if satisfied that the statement's reliability is doubtful in view of: Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42.
Great Deal 
New Comment