{"kind":"expression","expression":{"expr_id":"2171","doc_id":"2171","label":"2018-0043","is_as_enacted":"f","commenced_on":null,"superseded_on":null,"valid_from":null,"valid_to":null,"is_current":"t","incorporating":null,"akn_expr_iri":"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/eng@2018-01-01","akn_envelope":"{\"_canary\": {\"iri\": {\"work\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\", \"expression\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/eng@2018-01-01\", \"manifestation\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/eng@2018-01-01.pdf\"}, \"pdf\": {\"md5\": \"5880766993bc1335e13e5fc28f82a0a4\", \"path\": \"\/Users\/q\/kyleg-data\/working\/BILLS\/2018\/2018-0043\/2018-0043.pdf\", \"pages\": 12, \"filename\": \"2018-0043.pdf\"}, \"errors\": [], \"extraction\": {\"model\": null, \"stats\": {\"word_count\": 2908, \"paragraph_count\": 6, \"text_char_count\": 17286}, \"usage\": null, \"method\": \"pymupdf-text\", \"version\": \"kyleg-akn-1.0\", \"extracted_at\": \"2026-06-22\"}, \"classification\": \"text_layer\", \"validation_flags\": [], \"docai_processor_id\": null}, \"akomaNtoso\": {\"act\": null, \"doc\": null, \"bill\": {\"body\": [{\"eId\": \"sec_n1\", \"num\": null, \"text\": \"Gazette No. 81 dated 24th October, 2018 A BILL FOR A LAW TO AMEND THE EVIDENCE LAW (2018 REVISION) TO MODERNIZE THE LAW IN RESPECT OF THE RULES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENTS; AND FOR INCIDENTAL AND CONNECTED PURPOSES The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 THE EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018 MEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS AND REASONS This Bill seeks to amend the Evidence Law (2018 Revision) (referred to as the principal Law) to modernize the rules in respect of hearsay evidence and witness statements and for incidental and connected purposes. Clause 1 provides for the short title to the legislation. Clause 2 amends section 18 of the principal Law by repealing paragraph (b) to modernize the principal Law with respect to the prosecution\u2019s ability to comment where an accused person does not give evidence (draw an adverse inference). It will correct the inequity in the principal Law which permits the Judge and defence counsel to comment where an adverse inference may be drawn but prohibits the prosecution from doing so.  It also amends paragraph (d) to provide that a defendant who chooses to attack the character of any person who is not called as witnesses (and who is not therefore in a position to defend themselves against any such attack) or a defendant who chooses to attack the character of any other person (including those called as witnesses) with the intention of not himself giving evidence in order to shield his own bad character from exposure may have their own bad character exposed to the tribunal of fact. Clause 3 amends section 33 of the principal Law to provide a definition for the word \u201cfear\u201d in circumstances where the Court has to consider admitting the statement of a person who is said to be in \u201cfear\u201d.  It provides that fear must be widely construed and \u201cincludes fear of the death or injury of another person or of financial loss\u201d. Clause 4 amends the principal Law by inserting new provisions, sections 33A33H, to deal with the use of documents to refresh memory; inconsistent statements; previous statements of a witness; additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay statements; documents produced as exhibits; credibility, stopping the case where evidence is unconvincing and the court\u2019s general discretion to exclude evidence. These provisions will bring the principal Law in line with the recent developments in these areas. The proposed section 33A provides for a statutory mechanism to enable a witness, whilst giving evidence, to refresh their memory from their previous statement. This is particularly helpful where there has been a long passage of time between the incident they seek to recall and the trial. The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 The proposed section 33B provides that where a person has made a previous inconsistent statement, the contents (if admitted) are admissible for the purposes of proving the truth of that statement. Currently, a previous inconsistent statement could only be used to impugn the credibility of a witness. This provision statutorily removes the rule. The proposed section 33C provides for other circumstances in which a previous statement may be admissible to prove the truth of its contents for e.g. where a witness is accused of a recent fabrication. This provision also statutorily removes the rule that a previous inconsistent statement could only be used to impugn the credibility of a witness. The proposed section 33D provides for additional requirements for admissibility of multiple hearsay statements, being statements, not made in oral evidence, that are relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it. The section defines a hearsay statement and provides that a hearsay statement may only be used where it is admissible under section 33B or 33C, all parties agree and to include it would be interests of justice. The proposed section 33E provides for the use of documents produced as exhibits and that they may only accompany the jury for its deliberations where the court considers it appropriate or all the parties to the proceedings agree that it should accompany the jury. The proposed section 33F provides for the issue of credibility to apply where certain statements are admitted in the absence of oral testimony. The proposed section 33G provides for the court to stop the case where the evidence is unconvincing. The proposed section 33H provides for the court to have a general discretion to exclude evidence. Clause 5 provides for transitional provisions. The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 THE EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES\", \"element\": \"section\", \"heading\": null}, {\"eId\": \"sec_1\", \"num\": \"1.\", \"text\": \"Short title\", \"element\": \"section\", \"heading\": null}, {\"eId\": \"sec_2\", \"num\": \"2.\", \"text\": \"Amendment of section 18 of the of the Evidence Law (2018 Revision) - accused persons, etc., as competent witnesses\", \"element\": \"section\", \"heading\": null}, {\"eId\": \"sec_3\", \"num\": \"3.\", \"text\": \"Amendment of section 33 - proof in criminal proceedings by written statement\", \"element\": \"section\", \"heading\": null}, {\"eId\": \"sec_4\", \"num\": \"4.\", \"text\": \"Insertion of new sections 33A-33H - use of documents to refresh memory; inconsistent statements; other previous statements of witness; additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay statements; documents produced as exhibits; credibility, stopping the case where evidence is unconvincing; court\u2019s general discretion to exclude evidence\", \"element\": \"section\", \"heading\": null}, {\"eId\": \"sec_5\", \"num\": \"5.\", \"text\": \"Transitional provisions The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 A BILL FOR A LAW TO AMEND THE EVIDENCE LAW (2018 REVISION) TO MODERNIZE THE LAW IN RESPECT OF THE RULES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENTS; AND FOR INCIDENTAL AND CONNECTED PURPOSES ENACTED by the Legislature of the Cayman Islands. 1. This Law may be cited as the Evidence (Amendment) Law, 2018. 2. The Evidence Law (2018 Revision), in this Law referred to as the \u201cprincipal Law\u201d, is amended in section 18 - (a) by repealing paragraph (b); and (b) in paragraph (d)(ii) by deleting the words \u201cof the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution\u201d and substituting the words \u201cof any other person, in which case evidence tending to show that he has committed, been convicted, or been charged with any offence other than that with which he is charged, or is of bad character, may be adduced whether or not he has given evidence in his own defence\u201d. 3. The principal Law is amended in section 33(3) as follows - (a) in paragraph (a) by deleting the word \u201cand\u201d; (b) in paragraph (b) by deleting the full stop and substituting the word \u201c; and\u201d; and Short title Amendment of section 18 of the Evidence Law (2018 Revision) - accused persons, etc., as competent witnesses Amendment of section 33 - proof in criminal proceedings by written statement The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 (c) by inserting after paragraph (b), the following paragraph - \u201c(c) for the purposes of paragraph (b), fear is to be widely construed and includes fear of the death or injury of another person or of financial loss.\u201d. 4. The principal Law is amended by inserting after section 33 the following sections - \u201cUse of documents to refresh memory 33A. (1) A person giving oral evidence in criminal proceedings about any matter may, at any stage in the course of doing so, refresh his memory of it from a document made or verified by him at an earlier time if - (a) that person states in the person\u2019s oral evidence that the document records the person\u2019s recollection of the matter at that earlier time; and (b) that person\u2019s recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at that time than it is at the time of the person\u2019s oral evidence. (2) Where - (a) a person giving oral evidence in criminal proceedings about any matter has previously given an oral account of which a sound or video recording was made, and that person states in that evidence that the account represented that person\u2019s recollection of the matter at the time; (b) that person\u2019s recollection of the matter is likely to have been significantly better at the time of the previous account than it is at the time of that person\u2019s oral evidence; and (c) a transcript has been made of the sound or video recording, that person may, at any stage in the course of giving that person\u2019s evidence, refresh that person\u2019s memory of the matter from that transcript. Insertion of sections 33A \u2013 33H - use of documents to refresh memory; inconsistent statements; other previous statements of witness; additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay statements; documents produced as exhibits; credibility, stopping the case where evidence is unconvincing; court\u2019s general discretion to exclude evidence The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Inconsistent statements 33B. (1) If in criminal proceedings a person gives oral evidence and - (a) that person admits making a previous inconsistent statement; or (b) a previous inconsistent statement made by that person is proved to have been made by virtue of section 4, the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible. (2) If in criminal proceedings evidence of an inconsistent statement by any person is proved by virtue of section 33F(1)(c), the statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated in it of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible. Other previous statements of witness 33C. (1) Where a person is called to give evidence in criminal proceedings and a previous statement by that person is admitted as evidence to rebut a suggestion that that person\u2019s oral evidence has been fabricated, that statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible. (2) A statement made by a person in a document - (a) which is used by that person to refresh that person\u2019s memory while giving evidence; (b) on which that person is cross-examined; and (c) which as a consequence is received in evidence in the proceedings, is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible. (3) A previous statement by a person is admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by that person would be admissible, if - (a) any of the following three conditions is satisfied - (i) that the statement identifies or The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 describes another person, object or place; (ii) the statement was made by the person when the matters stated were fresh in that person\u2019s memory but that person does not remember them, and cannot reasonably be expected to remember them well enough to give oral evidence of them in the proceedings; or (iii) that person claims to be the person against whom an offence has been committed and the offence is one to which the proceedings relate and the statement consists of a complaint made by that person (whether to a person in authority or not) about conduct which would, if proved, constitute the offence or part of the offence and the complaint was not made as a result of a threat or a promise, and before the statement is adduced that person gives oral evidence in connection with its subject matter; and (b) while giving evidence that person indicates that to the best of that person\u2019s belief that person made the statement, and that to the best of that person\u2019s belief it states the truth. (4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the fact that the complaint was elicited (for example, by a leading question) is irrelevant unless a threat or a promise was involved. Additional requirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay statement 33D. (1) A hearsay statement is not admissible to prove the fact that an earlier hearsay statement was made unless - (a) either of the statements is admissible under section 33B or 33C; (b) all parties to the proceedings agree; or (c) 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. The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 (2) In this section \u201chearsay statement\u201d means a statement, not made in oral evidence, that is relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it. Documents produced as exhibits 33E. (1) If on a trial before a judge and jury for an offence- (a) a statement made in a document is admitted in evidence under section 33B or 33C, and (b) the document or a copy of it is produced as an exhibit. that exhibit shall not accompany the jury when they retire to consider their verdict unless the court considers it appropriate, or all the parties to the proceedings agree that it should accompany the jury. Credibility 33F. (1) Where in criminal proceedings a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings is admitted as evidence of a matter stated and the maker of the statement does not give oral evidence in connection with the subject matter of the statement, in such a case - (a) any evidence which (if the person had given such evidence) would have been admissible as relevant to that person\u2019s credibility as a witness is admissible in the proceedings; (b) evidence may with the court\u2019s leave be given of any matter which (if the person had given such evidence) could have been put to that person in cross-examination as relevant to that person\u2019s credibility as a witness but of which evidence could not have been adduced by the cross-examining party; and (c) evidence tending to prove that the person made (at whatever time) any other statement inconsistent with the statement admitted as evidence is admissible for the purpose of showing that person to be contradictory. (2) If as a result of evidence admitted under this section an allegation is made against the maker of a statement, the court may permit a party to lead additional evidence of such description as the court may specify for the purposes of denying or answering the allegation. The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Stopping the case where evidence is unconvincing 33G. (1) If during a defendant\u2019s trial before a judge and jury for an offence the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that - (a) the case against the defendant is based wholly or partly on a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings; and (b) the evidence provided by the statement is so unconvincing that, considering its importance to the case against the defendant, the defendants conviction of the offence would be unsafe, the court shall either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial, discharge the jury. (2) Where - (a) a jury is directed under subsection (1) to acquit a defendant of an offence; and (b) the circumstances are such that, apart from this subsection, the defendant could if acquitted of that offence be found guilty of another offence, the defendant may not be found guilty of that other offence if the court is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) in respect of it. (3) If - (a) a jury is required to determine under section 158 of the Criminal Procedure Code (2017 Revision) whether a person charged on an indictment with an offence did the act or made the omission charged; and (b) pursuant to subsection (1), the court is satisfied at any time after the close of the case for the prosecution that - (i) the case against the defendant is based wholly or partly on a statement not made in oral evidence in the proceedings; and (ii) the evidence provided by the statement The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 is so unconvincing that, considering its importance to the case against the person, a finding that he did the act or made the omission would be unsafe, the court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of the offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a rehearing, discharge the jury. (4) This section does not prejudice any other power a court may have to direct a jury to acquit a person of an offence or to discharge a jury. Court\u2019s general discretion to exclude evidence 33H. (1) The court may, in criminal proceedings, refuse to admit a statement as evidence of a matter stated if - (a) the statement was made otherwise than in oral evidence in the proceedings; and (b) the court is satisfied that the case for excluding the statement, taking account of the danger that to admit it would result in undue waste of time, substantially outweighs the case for admitting it, taking account of the value of the evidence. (2) Nothing in this section prejudices the power of a court under section 40 of this Law (exclusion of unfair evidence) or any other power of a court to exclude evidence at its discretion (whether by preventing questions from being put or otherwise).\u201d. 5. (1) Where, at the date of commencement of this Law, any trial or any proceedings in respect of an offence are pending before a court, the trial or proceedings shall, on and after that date, be dealt with in all respects under the new Law (irrespective of when the offence was committed) and the provisions of the new Law are to apply accordingly. (2) In this section \u201cnew Law\u201d means the Evidence Law (2018 Revision) as amended by this Law. Transitional provisions 2018 Revision The Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018 Passed by the Legislative Assembly the         day of , 2018. Speaker. Clerk of the Legislative Assembly.\", \"element\": \"section\", \"heading\": null}], \"meta\": {\"notes\": null, \"workflow\": null, \"lifecycle\": {\"source\": \"#cilegis\", \"eventRef\": [{\"eId\": \"e_commence_2018_01_01\", \"date\": \"2018-01-01\", \"type\": \"generation\", \"source\": \"#cilegis\"}]}, \"references\": {\"source\": \"#canary\", \"TLCRole\": [], \"TLCEvent\": [{\"eId\": \"ev_commencement\", \"href\": \"\/akn\/ontology\/canary\/event\/commencement\", \"showAs\": \"commencement\"}], \"TLCPerson\": [], \"TLCConcept\": [{\"eId\": \"inForce\", \"href\": \"\/akn\/ontology\/canary\/concept\/temporal\/in-force\", \"showAs\": \"in force\"}], \"TLCProcess\": [], \"TLCLocation\": [], \"TLCOrganization\": [{\"eId\": \"cilegis\", \"href\": \"\/akn\/ontology\/canary\/organization\/editor\/cilegis\", \"showAs\": \"Cayman Islands legislation mirror (kyleg)\"}]}, \"temporalData\": {\"source\": \"#cilegis\", \"temporalGroup\": [{\"eId\": \"tg_inforce_2018_01_01\", \"timeInterval\": [{\"end\": null, \"start\": \"#e_commence_2018_01_01\", \"duration\": null, \"refersTo\": \"#inForce\"}]}]}, \"classification\": null, \"identification\": {\"source\": \"#cilegis\", \"FRBRWork\": {\"FRBRuri\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\", \"FRBRdate\": [{\"date\": \"2018-01-01\", \"name\": \"generation\"}], \"FRBRthis\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/!main\", \"FRBRalias\": [{\"name\": \"cmsId\", \"value\": \"2018-0043\"}], \"FRBRauthor\": [{\"as\": \"#editor\", \"href\": \"\/akn\/ontology\/canary\/organization\/editor\/cilegis\"}], \"FRBRnumber\": \"43 of 2018\", \"FRBRcountry\": \"ky\", \"FRBRsubtype\": \"bill\"}, \"FRBRExpression\": {\"FRBRuri\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/eng@2018-01-01\", \"FRBRdate\": [{\"date\": \"2018-01-01\", \"name\": \"generation\"}], \"FRBRthis\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/eng@2018-01-01\/!main\", \"FRBRauthor\": [{\"as\": \"#editor\", \"href\": \"\/akn\/ontology\/canary\/organization\/editor\/cilegis\"}], \"FRBRlanguage\": \"eng\"}, \"FRBRManifestation\": {\"FRBRuri\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/eng@2018-01-01.xml\", \"FRBRdate\": [{\"date\": \"2026-06-22\", \"name\": \"generation\"}], \"FRBRthis\": \"\/akn\/ky\/bill\/2018\/43\/eng@2018-01-01.xml\", \"FRBRauthor\": [{\"as\": \"#editor\", \"href\": \"\/akn\/ontology\/canary\/organization\/editor\/cilegis\"}], \"FRBRformat\": \"application\/xml\"}}}, \"name\": \"bill\", \"header\": {\"title\": \"2018-0043\", \"actNumber\": \"43 of 2018\", \"longTitle\": null}}, \"judgment\": null}}","akn_full_text":"CAYMAN ISLANDS\n\nSupplement No. 19 published with Extraordinary\nGazette No. 81 dated 24th October, 2018\n\nA BILL FOR A LAW TO AMEND THE EVIDENCE LAW (2018\nREVISION) TO MODERNIZE THE LAW IN RESPECT OF THE RULES\nOF HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENTS; AND FOR\nINCIDENTAL AND CONNECTED PURPOSES\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n2\n\nTHE EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018\nMEMORANDUM OF OBJECTS AND REASONS\n\nThis Bill seeks to amend the Evidence Law (2018 Revision) (referred to as the\nprincipal Law) to modernize the rules in respect of hearsay evidence and witness\nstatements and for incidental and connected purposes.\n\nClause 1 provides for the short title to the legislation.\n\nClause 2 amends section 18 of the principal Law by repealing paragraph (b) to\nmodernize the principal Law with respect to the prosecution\u2019s ability to comment\nwhere an accused person does not give evidence (draw an adverse inference). It\nwill correct the inequity in the principal Law which permits the Judge and\ndefence counsel to comment where an adverse inference may be drawn but\nprohibits the prosecution from doing so.  It also amends paragraph (d) to provide\nthat a defendant who chooses to attack the character of any person who is not\ncalled as witnesses (and who is not therefore in a position to defend themselves\nagainst any such attack) or a defendant who chooses to attack the character of any\nother person (including those called as witnesses) with the intention of not\nhimself giving evidence in order to shield his own bad character from exposure\nmay have their own bad character exposed to the tribunal of fact.\n\nClause 3 amends section 33 of the principal Law to provide a definition for the\nword \u201cfear\u201d in circumstances where the Court has to consider admitting the\nstatement of a person who is said to be in \u201cfear\u201d.  It provides that fear must be\nwidely construed and \u201cincludes fear of the death or injury of another person or of\nfinancial loss\u201d.\n\nClause 4 amends the principal Law by inserting new provisions, sections 33A33H, to deal with the use of documents to refresh memory; inconsistent\nstatements; previous statements of a witness; additional requirement for\nadmissibility of multiple hearsay statements; documents produced as exhibits;\ncredibility, stopping the case where evidence is unconvincing and the court\u2019s\ngeneral discretion to exclude evidence. These provisions will bring the principal\nLaw in line with the recent developments in these areas.\n\nThe proposed section 33A provides for a statutory mechanism to enable a\nwitness, whilst giving evidence, to refresh their memory from their previous\nstatement. This is particularly helpful where there has been a long passage of time\nbetween the incident they seek to recall and the trial.\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n3\nThe proposed section 33B provides that where a person has made a previous\ninconsistent statement, the contents (if admitted) are admissible for the purposes\nof proving the truth of that statement. Currently, a previous inconsistent statement\ncould only be used to impugn the credibility of a witness. This provision\nstatutorily removes the rule.\n\nThe proposed section 33C provides for other circumstances in which a previous\nstatement may be admissible to prove the truth of its contents for e.g. where a\nwitness is accused of a recent fabrication. This provision also statutorily removes\nthe rule that a previous inconsistent statement could only be used to impugn the\ncredibility of a witness.\n\nThe proposed section 33D provides for additional requirements for admissibility\nof multiple hearsay statements, being statements, not made in oral evidence, that\nare relied on as evidence of a matter stated in it. The section defines a hearsay\nstatement and provides that a hearsay statement may only be used where it is\nadmissible under section 33B or 33C, all parties agree and to include it would be\ninterests of justice.\n\nThe proposed section 33E provides for the use of documents produced as exhibits\nand that they may only accompany the jury for its deliberations where the court\nconsiders it appropriate or all the parties to the proceedings agree that it should\naccompany the jury.\nThe proposed section 33F provides for the issue of credibility to apply where\ncertain statements are admitted in the absence of oral testimony.\nThe proposed section 33G provides for the court to stop the case where the\nevidence is unconvincing.\nThe proposed section 33H provides for the court to have a general discretion to\nexclude evidence.\nClause 5 provides for transitional provisions.\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n4\n\nTHE EVIDENCE (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2018\n\nARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES\n\n1.\nShort title\n2.\nAmendment of section 18 of the of the Evidence Law (2018 Revision) -\naccused persons, etc., as competent witnesses\n3.\nAmendment of section 33 - proof in criminal proceedings by written\nstatement\n4.\nInsertion of new sections 33A-33H - use of documents to refresh memory;\ninconsistent statements; other previous statements of witness; additional\nrequirement for admissibility of multiple hearsay statements; documents\nproduced as exhibits; credibility, stopping the case where evidence is\nunconvincing; court\u2019s general discretion to exclude evidence\n5.\nTransitional provisions\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n5\n\nCAYMAN ISLANDS\n\nA BILL FOR A LAW TO AMEND THE EVIDENCE LAW (2018\nREVISION) TO MODERNIZE THE LAW IN RESPECT OF THE RULES\nOF HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENTS; AND FOR\nINCIDENTAL AND CONNECTED PURPOSES\n\nENACTED by the Legislature of the Cayman Islands.\n1.\nThis Law may be cited as the Evidence (Amendment) Law, 2018.\n2.\nThe Evidence Law (2018 Revision), in this Law referred to as the \u201cprincipal\nLaw\u201d, is amended in section 18 -\n(a)\nby repealing paragraph (b); and\n(b) in paragraph (d)(ii) by deleting the words \u201cof the prosecutor or\nthe witnesses for the prosecution\u201d and substituting the words \u201cof\nany other person, in which case evidence tending to show that he\nhas committed, been convicted, or been charged with any offence\nother than that with which he is charged, or is of bad character,\nmay be adduced whether or not he has given evidence in his own\ndefence\u201d.\n3.\nThe principal Law is amended in section 33(3) as follows -\n(a)\nin paragraph (a) by deleting the word \u201cand\u201d;\n(b) in paragraph (b) by deleting the full stop and substituting the\nword \u201c; and\u201d; and\nShort title\nAmendment of section\n18 of the Evidence Law\n(2018 Revision) -\naccused persons, etc., as\ncompetent witnesses\nAmendment of section\n33 - proof in criminal\nproceedings by written\nstatement\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n6\n(c)\nby inserting after paragraph (b), the following paragraph -\n\n\u201c(c) for the purposes of paragraph (b), fear is to be widely\nconstrued and includes fear of the death or injury of another\nperson or of financial loss.\u201d.\n4.\nThe principal Law is amended by inserting after section 33 the following\nsections -\n\u201cUse\nof\ndocuments\nto\nrefresh\nmemory\n33A. (1) A person giving oral evidence in criminal\nproceedings about any matter may, at any stage in the course\nof doing so, refresh his memory of it from a document made\nor verified by him at an earlier time if -\n(a) that person states in the person\u2019s oral\nevidence that the document records the\nperson\u2019s recollection of the matter at that\nearlier time; and\n(b) that person\u2019s recollection of the matter is\nlikely to have been significantly better at that\ntime than it is at the time of the person\u2019s oral\nevidence.\n(2) Where -\n(a)\na person giving oral evidence in criminal\nproceedings about any matter has previously\ngiven an oral account of which a sound or\nvideo recording was made, and that person\nstates in that evidence that the account\nrepresented that person\u2019s recollection of the\nmatter at the time;\n(b) that person\u2019s recollection of the matter is\nlikely to have been significantly better at the\ntime of the previous account than it is at the\ntime of that person\u2019s oral evidence; and\n(c)\na transcript has been made of the sound or\nvideo recording,\nthat person may, at any stage in the course of giving that\nperson\u2019s evidence, refresh that person\u2019s memory of the\nmatter from that transcript.\n\nInsertion of sections\n33A \u2013 33H - use of\ndocuments to refresh\nmemory; inconsistent\nstatements; other\nprevious statements of\nwitness; additional\nrequirement for\nadmissibility of multiple\nhearsay statements;\ndocuments produced as\nexhibits; credibility,\nstopping the case where\nevidence is\nunconvincing; court\u2019s\ngeneral discretion to\nexclude evidence\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n7\n\nInconsistent\nstatements\n33B. (1) If in criminal proceedings a person gives oral\nevidence and -\n(a) that person admits making a previous\ninconsistent statement; or\n(b) a previous inconsistent statement made by\nthat person is proved to have been made by\nvirtue of section 4,\nthe statement is admissible as evidence of any matter stated\nof which oral evidence by that person would be admissible.\n(2) If in criminal proceedings evidence of an\ninconsistent statement by any person is proved by virtue of\nsection 33F(1)(c), the statement is admissible as evidence of\nany matter stated in it of which oral evidence by that person\nwould be admissible.\nOther previous\nstatements\nof\nwitness\n33C. (1) Where a person is called to give evidence in\ncriminal proceedings and a previous statement by that person\nis admitted as evidence to rebut a suggestion that that\nperson\u2019s oral evidence has been fabricated, that statement is\nadmissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral\nevidence by that person would be admissible.\n(2) A statement made by a person in a document -\n(a)\nwhich is used by that person to refresh that\nperson\u2019s memory while giving evidence;\n(b) on which that person is cross-examined; and\n(c)\nwhich as a consequence is received in\nevidence in the proceedings,\nis admissible as evidence of any matter stated of which oral\nevidence by that person would be admissible.\n(3) A previous statement by a person is admissible as\nevidence of any matter stated of which oral evidence by that\nperson would be admissible, if -\n(a)\nany of the following three conditions is\nsatisfied -\n(i)\nthat\nthe\nstatement\nidentifies\nor\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n8\ndescribes another person, object or\nplace;\n(ii) the statement was made by the person\nwhen the matters stated were fresh in\nthat person\u2019s memory but that person\ndoes not remember them, and cannot\nreasonably be expected to remember\nthem well enough to give oral evidence\nof them in the proceedings; or\n(iii) that person claims to be the person\nagainst whom an offence has been\ncommitted and the offence is one to\nwhich the proceedings relate and the\nstatement consists of a complaint made\nby that person (whether to a person in\nauthority or not) about conduct which\nwould, if proved, constitute the offence\nor part of the offence and the complaint\nwas not made as a result of a threat or a\npromise, and before the statement is\nadduced that person gives oral evidence\nin connection with its subject matter;\nand\n(b) while giving evidence that person indicates\nthat to the best of that person\u2019s belief that\nperson made the statement, and that to the\nbest of that person\u2019s belief it states the truth.\n(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) the fact that the\ncomplaint was elicited (for example, by a leading question)\nis irrelevant unless a threat or a promise was involved.\nAdditional\nrequirement\nfor\nadmissibility\nof multiple\nhearsay\nstatement\n33D. (1) A hearsay statement is not admissible to prove the\nfact that an earlier hearsay statement was made unless -\n(a)\neither of the statements is admissible under\nsection 33B or 33C;\n(b) all parties to the proceedings agree; or\n(c)\nthe court is satisfied that the value of the\nevidence in question, taking into account\nhow reliable the statements appear to be, is\nso high that the interests of justice require\nthe later statement to be admissible for that\npurpose.\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n9\n(2) In this section \u201chearsay statement\u201d means a\nstatement, not made in oral evidence, that is relied on as\nevidence of a matter stated in it.\nDocuments\nproduced as\nexhibits\n33E. (1) If on a trial before a judge and jury for an offence-\n(a)\na statement made in a document is admitted\nin evidence under section 33B or 33C, and\n(b) the document or a copy of it is produced as\nan exhibit.\nthat exhibit shall not accompany the jury when they retire to\nconsider their verdict unless the court considers it\nappropriate, or all the parties to the proceedings agree that it\nshould accompany the jury.\nCredibility\n\n33F. (1) Where in criminal proceedings a statement not\nmade in oral evidence in the proceedings is admitted as\nevidence of a matter stated and the maker of the statement\ndoes not give oral evidence in connection with the subject\nmatter of the statement, in such a case -\n(a)\nany evidence which (if the person had given\nsuch evidence) would have been admissible\nas relevant to that person\u2019s credibility as a\nwitness is admissible in the proceedings;\n(b) evidence may with the court\u2019s leave be given\nof any matter which (if the person had given\nsuch evidence) could have been put to that\nperson in cross-examination as relevant to\nthat person\u2019s credibility as a witness but of\nwhich evidence could not have been adduced\nby the cross-examining party; and\n(c)\nevidence tending to prove that the person\nmade (at whatever time) any other statement\ninconsistent with the statement admitted as\nevidence is admissible for the purpose of\nshowing that person to be contradictory.\n(2) If as a result of evidence admitted under this\nsection an allegation is made against the maker of a\nstatement, the court may permit a party to lead additional\nevidence of such description as the court may specify for the\npurposes of denying or answering the allegation.\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n10\nStopping the\ncase where\nevidence is\nunconvincing\n\n33G. (1) If during a defendant\u2019s trial before a judge and\njury for an offence the court is satisfied at any time after the\nclose of the case for the prosecution that -\n(a)\nthe case against the defendant is based\nwholly or partly on a statement not made in\noral evidence in the proceedings; and\n(b) the evidence provided by the statement is so\nunconvincing\nthat,\nconsidering\nits\nimportance to the case against the defendant,\nthe defendants conviction of the offence\nwould be unsafe,\nthe court shall either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of\nthe offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a retrial,\ndischarge the jury.\n(2) Where -\n(a)\na jury is directed under subsection (1) to\nacquit a defendant of an offence; and\n(b) the circumstances are such that, apart from\nthis subsection, the defendant could if\nacquitted of that offence be found guilty of\nanother offence,\nthe defendant may not be found guilty of that other offence if\nthe court is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) in respect\nof it.\n(3) If -\n(a)\na jury is required to determine under section\n158 of the Criminal Procedure Code (2017\nRevision) whether a person charged on an\nindictment with an offence did the act or\nmade the omission charged; and\n(b) pursuant to subsection (1), the court is\nsatisfied at any time after the close of the\ncase for the prosecution that -\n(i)\nthe case against the defendant is based\nwholly or partly on a statement not\nmade\nin\noral\nevidence\nin\nthe\nproceedings; and\n(ii) the evidence provided by the statement\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n11\nis so unconvincing that, considering its\nimportance to the case against the\nperson, a finding that he did the act or\nmade the omission would be unsafe,\nthe court must either direct the jury to acquit the defendant of\nthe offence or, if it considers that there ought to be a\nrehearing, discharge the jury.\n(4) This section does not prejudice any other power a\ncourt may have to direct a jury to acquit a person of an\noffence or to discharge a jury.\nCourt\u2019s\ngeneral\ndiscretion to\nexclude\nevidence\n\n33H. (1) The court may, in criminal proceedings, refuse to\nadmit a statement as evidence of a matter stated if -\n(a)\nthe statement was made otherwise than in\noral evidence in the proceedings; and\n(b) the court is satisfied that the case for\nexcluding the statement, taking account of\nthe danger that to admit it would result in\nundue waste of time, substantially outweighs\nthe case for admitting it, taking account of\nthe value of the evidence.\n(2) Nothing in this section prejudices the power of a\ncourt under section 40 of this Law (exclusion of unfair\nevidence) or any other power of a court to exclude evidence\nat its discretion (whether by preventing questions from being\nput or otherwise).\u201d.\n5.\n(1) Where, at the date of commencement of this Law, any trial or any\nproceedings in respect of an offence are pending before a court, the trial or\nproceedings shall, on and after that date, be dealt with in all respects under the\nnew Law (irrespective of when the offence was committed) and the provisions of\nthe new Law are to apply accordingly.\n(2) In this section \u201cnew Law\u201d means the Evidence Law (2018 Revision) as\namended by this Law.\nTransitional provisions\n\n2018 Revision\n\nThe Evidence (Amendment) Bill, 2018\n\n12\n\nPassed by the Legislative Assembly the         day of\n\n       , 2018.\n\nSpeaker.\n\nClerk of the Legislative Assembly.","akn_extracted_at":"2026-06-22 15:41:10.671233+00","cms_id":"2018-0043","law_type":"bill","year":"2018","number":"43","title":"2018-0043","status":"bill"},"provenance":{"files":[{"file_id":"6970","expr_id":"2171","kind":"akn_xml","filename":"2018-0043.akn.xml","source_url":null,"storage_path":"\/Users\/q\/kyleg-data\/working\/BILLS\/2018\/2018-0043\/2018-0043.akn.xml","content_md5":"20a96c750a56dde5bbce65fb4007270b","byte_size":"20347","http_last_modified":null,"fetched_at":"2026-06-22 15:41:10.753259+00"},{"file_id":"4341","expr_id":"2171","kind":"pristine_pdf","filename":"2018-0043.pdf","source_url":"\/cms\/images\/LEGISLATION\/BILLS\/2018\/2018-0043\/2018-0043.pdf","storage_path":"\/Users\/q\/kyleg-data\/pristine\/BILLS\/2018\/2018-0043\/2018-0043.pdf","content_md5":"5880766993bc1335e13e5fc28f82a0a4","byte_size":"136887","http_last_modified":null,"fetched_at":"2026-06-16 04:01:11.266594+00"},{"file_id":"4342","expr_id":"2171","kind":"working_pdf","filename":"2018-0043.pdf","source_url":"\/cms\/images\/LEGISLATION\/BILLS\/2018\/2018-0043\/2018-0043.pdf","storage_path":"\/Users\/q\/kyleg-data\/working\/BILLS\/2018\/2018-0043\/2018-0043.pdf","content_md5":"5880766993bc1335e13e5fc28f82a0a4","byte_size":"136887","http_last_modified":null,"fetched_at":"2026-06-16 04:01:11.266594+00"}],"paragraph_count":32,"latest_history":null},"quality":{"expr_id":"2171","doc_id":"2171","quality_state":"known_issue","quality_score":"67","needs_human_review":"t","deterministic_categories":"{duplicate_text,page_header_footer_noise,title_mismatch}","llm_categories":"{}","repair_actions":"{collapse_duplicate_text,strip_page_furniture,verify_title_metadata}","finding_severity_counts":"{\"low\": 2, \"high\": 1}","finding_summary":"stored title is not visible in the opening extracted text; repeated line furniture detected: the evidence amendment bill 2018 x13; statement x4; evidence x3","assessed_at":"2026-06-22 15:29:46.211825+00","updated_at":"2026-06-22 15:29:46.211825+00"}}