Implied assertion

In the law of evidence, an implied assertion is a statement or conduct that implies some fact. There is varying opinion of whether hearsay evidence of implied assertions should be admissible in court to prove the truth of its contents. While they are considered hearsay, they are generally considered more reliable than regular statements as they are far less easy to fabricate.

In R v Sukadeve Singh [2006] EWCA Crim. 660, [2006] 2 Cr.App.R 12, Rose LJ giving the judgment of the court said this at paragraph 14:

"When section 114 and section 118 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 are read together they, in our judgment, abolish the common law hearsay rules (save those which are expressly preserved) and create instead a new rule against hearsay which does not extend to implied assertions. What was said by the callers in Kearley ^[1] would now be admissible as direct evidence of the fact that there was a ready market for the supply of drugs from the premises, from which could be inferred an intention by an occupier to supply drugs. The view of the majority in Kearley,^[2] in relation to hearsay, has been set aside by the Act."

In Sukadeve Singh various telephone entries were held not to be a matter stated within section 115 but to be implied assertions which were admissible because they were no longer hearsay.^[3]

References

1. ↑ R v Kearley (1992) 2 AC 228].
2. ↑ R v Kearley (1992) 2 AC 228].
3. ↑ WikiCrimeLine: Definition of hearsay evidence