R v Hickson (No. 3)

The case of R v Hickson (No. 3) arose in the context of a murder trial in which the Crown sought to introduce certain types of evidence against the accused. The issues under consideration were primarily concerned with the admissibility of second-hand hearsay evidence and expert evidence in the criminal proceedings. The court had to determine whether the hearsay evidence, which was intended to bolster the credibility of a witness, could be admitted under section 102 of the Evidence Act, and whether the expert evidence, which involved a comparison of footprints and shoe impressions, was admissible under section 137 of the same Act.

The court began by examining the hearsay evidence, which was intended to corroborate a witness's account by introducing an alleged admission made by the accused. The court found that the hearsay evidence did not fall within any exception to the credibility rule, as it was not fresh in the mind of the person making the representation. Consequently, the court held that the hearsay evidence was inadmissible. The court then turned to the expert evidence, which involved a comparison of footprints in blood found at the scene of the murder with the sole impressions of a number of Trax brand shoes. The court found that the expert's report was equivocal at best, and that the risk of prejudice outweighed the probative value of the evidence. Therefore, the expert evidence was also deemed inadmissible.

In conclusion, the court ruled that both the second-hand hearsay evidence and the expert evidence were inadmissible in the murder trial. The court's decision was based on the provisions of the Evidence Act and a careful consideration of the potential for prejudice and the probative value of the evidence. The outcome of the case highlights the stringent requirements for the admissibility of certain types of evidence in criminal proceedings.