Alex is charged with theft of a camera from a shop and his defence is duress. He wishes
to give evidence that while he was waiting for a bus outside the shop, an unknown man
approached him and said, ‘If you don’t go in and steal a camera for me, I’ll knife you’.
Can Alex give evidence of what was said to him?
the statement is not hearsay but original evidence relevant
to Alex’s statement of mind. This is because Alex’s defence is duress and he will argue that the
he was frightened by the unknown man’s statement. As the statement is not hearsay, the test for
admissibility is relevance. See Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965. [A] is
wrong because the statement is not hearsay. [B] is wrong because the condition of identifying
the maker applies to hearsay statements of absent witnesses, and this statement is not hearsay.
[C] is wrong because the statement is relevant to Alex’s state of mind
