Hearsay Question pt.2

The principle on which evidence of res gestae, including hearsay evidence, is admitted is that the words and events may be so closely inter-related that the truth can only be discovered when the words accompanying the events are disclosed. But it is not essential that the words should be absolutely contemporaneous with the events. What is essential is that there should be close association, and that the words sought to be proved by hearsay should be at least de recenti and not after an interval which would allow time for reflection and for concocting a story.  http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/hearsay/

However, the soundness of this approach seems to be doubted in the recent case of Cinci v HM Advocate. There the complainer, on being discovered naked in a shower cubicle with the accused, stated that he had raped her. The trial judge was of the view that this statement was admissible as part of the res gestae, following the approach taken in O’Hara, but this was reversed on appeal. Lord Justice Clerk Gill stated that he was:

“…of the opinion that the words “He raped me” were not part of the res gestae. The res gestae principle is founded, at any rate on the older Scottish authorities, on the idea that the words spoken are part of the event itself.”

De recenti is well explained in Morton v HM Advocate

A statement made by an injured party de recenti, unless it can be brought within res gestae, is ordinarily inadmissible as hearsay only, but an exception is allowed in the case of sexual assaults on women and children. A statement of the injured party de recenti is nothing but the statement of the injured party, and it is not evidence of the fact complained of. It follows that for a de recenti statement to be admissible, its maker must testify. This was also illustrated with photo booth hire Glasgow

In Shaban Ahmed v HMA 2009,an alleged victim in rape case made de recenti remark to friend but denied doing so later at trial. On appeal, held remark admissible; no rule that the victim had to confirm making it in order for it to be admissible. The crucial thing was whether remark made, not whether alleged author of it agreed it was made.


Tesco Job interview tips

Questions for Tesco Bank Interview – Store

This post is sponsored by abogados de accidentes florida

Why do you want to work for Tesco?

Tesco are  the UK’s number one retailer and you pride ourselves on offering a great shopping experience. Tesco is passionate about our food, merchandise and services and will always try to get things right for our customers.

I have a genuine passion for delivering exceptional customer service – I love going the extra mile for the customer and being able to help someone, and Tesco operate on similar values –

  • No one tries harder for customer – this involves Understanding people – customers, colleagues, communities – and what matters to them, and then trying to make those things better, is at the heart of Tesco. It’s about listening to people and talking to them using all the tools at our disposal – from Clubcard data to social media – and then acting by changing and innovating to meet their needs.
  • We treat people how they want to be treated – This involves team work, trust, loyalty, and respect for oneanother. Looking after our colleagues in a culture of trust and respect is essential to the success of Tesco.

And I believe that because the values are very similar, if not identical to myself.  I will be able to thrive in such a company and flourish.

Being a good team player, passion towards my job, proven ability to multitask, determination, innovation, dedication, enthuasism,  flexibility, positive attitude,

Have you suggested a change which was implemented?

Suggested a change in my uncles post office, where they were deciding on marketing ideas for Christmas cards.  My boss suggested an offer of a 2 for £1 cards, however when this was put in place it was not really effective, through creating rapport with the customers I was able to gain feedback on this offer to try and make it better.  SO I suggested a different offer of 5 for £2, and at first he was a bit hesitant on going through with the offer.  So I went through the benefits again, and explained I had based my suggestion on customer feedback.  I suggested a trial run first of all, for 2 weeks, and if it went well he could consider extending it, if not we would work together to think of a better one.  The offer worked well, and the feedback I attained from the customers was good too.



Provision of services are possibly the most dynamic four freedoms from the Treaty of Rome due to the conception of what constitutes to being a service. The breadth of what the treaty article allows to be considered a service is why this area has been a victim of many debates in terms of case law development and legislative output. The courts have stated that the rights protected by Article 56 TFEU are actually wider than protection from discrimination on grounds of nationality residence. Article 56 is not solely concerned with economic activities, it actually expands into many fields such as music, sport and education, the list goes on.

Article 56 provides that: Restrictions on freedom to provide services within the Union shall be prohibited in respect of nationals of member states who are established in a MS other than that of the persons for whom the services are intended. The Europe parliament and council may extend the provisions to nationals of a third country who provided services and who are established within the Union.

Non Discrimination and Direct Effect – The rights created in Article 56 were originally understood in terms of the right of non-discrimination. Walrave and Koch –v- Association Union Cycliste Internationale [1974]. Two Dutch cyclists challenged the association’s rules that the ‘race pacemaker must have same nationality as the competitor’. AUCI argued: Art.56TFEU can only be invoked against M/S and public bodies, not sports associations. CJ: if so, this would obstruct FM – must be able to use Art.56 to challenge rules regulating employment and provision of services. Thus, Art.56 has horizontal direct effect


Find time to study too!

This post is sponsored by abogados de accidentes

(1) CJ considered ‘objective justification’ as a possible derogation – taking into account the particular services to be provided. Purpose is application of professional rules justified by general good e.g. organisation, qualifications, ethics, supervision, liability. They are binding on those established in the state where service is provided. Person providing services would escape the rules by being established elsewhere. State would need to show: legitimate public interest; equally applicable rule; objective justification.

(2) Not mentioned specifically in Art.56TFEU Luisi and Carbone –v- Ministero del Tesoro [1984] ECR 377. Two Italians were prosecuted for exceeding limits on currency movements from Italy.  Withdrew large sums (US$, French & Swiss Francs, DMs) and crossed into Germany and France ‘for purposes of tourism’ and also for medical treatment. CJ held that: an ‘important corollary’ of right to provide services is right to receive them – otherwise, Art.56 is ineffective. Art.56 includes freedom to go to another M/S to receive a service there without obstruction – tourists, persons receiving medical treatment, and persons travelling for purpose of education or business.

In Cowan –v- Trésor Public [1989] English tourist was assaulted and robbed on Paris métro – applied to French state for criminal injuries compensation – claim refused as it could only be made by French national. CJ: rule obstructed his right to move freely in France and receive services (tourism) – breached his Art.56 rights.