1995英国民事证据法

合集下载

传闻证据规则变革评述_兼谈对我国确立传闻证据规则的启示与借鉴_郭志媛

传闻证据规则变革评述_兼谈对我国确立传闻证据规则的启示与借鉴_郭志媛

传闻证据规则变革评述———兼谈对我国确立传闻证据规则的启示与借鉴郭志媛蔡溦**郭志媛,中国政法大学刑事司法学院副教授;蔡溦,江苏省高级人民法院刑庭助理审判员。

【摘要】传闻证据规则作为英美证据法上最古老的证据规则之一,经过几个世纪的演变,已面临着规则体系过于庞杂,规则适用趋于僵化的困境。

为此,进入21世纪以来,各主要英美法系国家均对传闻规则进行了法典化和简化,不仅如此,传闻证据规则的基本理念和原则在各个国家发生了明显分化。

英国的传闻规则日益宽松,其基本原则由排除变成采纳。

而美国则限制了法官对传闻证据可采性的自由裁量权,从自由化向着严格排除规则回归。

澳大利亚的传闻规则体现出一定的折衷性。

传闻证据规则在英美法系国家的变革以及变革反映出的不同价值理念启示我们,应当以现代规则为蓝本,确立简明、易行、符合中国国情的传闻证据规则,并以渐进式为思路,逐步确立传闻证据规则及其配套制度。

【关键词】传闻规则;法典化;简化;分化【中图分类号】D915.13【文献标识码】A【文章编号】1674-1226(2009)02-0240-10Comments on Reforms of Hearsay Rules:Inspirations to the Adoption of Hearsay Rules in China.Guo Zhiyuan,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088;Cai Wei,Higher People ′s Court ofJiangSu Province,210024.【Abstract 】As one of the oldest rules of evidence,hearsay rules have been in the plight of over-complexity and rigidity after centuries of evolvement.For this reason,some Anglo-American countries have codified and sim -plified hearsay rules.Meanwhile,the rationale and basic principles of hearsay rules have differences from country to country.In the U.K.,hearsay rules have become less rigid,changing from rules of exclusion to rules of admis -sion.The U.S.curtailed the discretion of judges on matters of admissibility of hearsay,which indicates a return from liberalization of hearsay rules to rigid rules of exclusion.Australia took a middle path in its hearsay rules re -form.From these reforms and the underlying values,we can learn that China should adopt modern rules of hearsay,making them concise,easy to apply,and fit in the particular situation of China.In addition,we should adopt hearsay rules and relating institutions gradually.【Key words 】Hearsay rules,Codification,Simplification,Differences传闻证据规则是英美法系中一项古老而重要的证据规则,被认为是英美证据法体系的核心与灵魂。

英美两国民事证据开示制度比较及其对我国的启示

英美两国民事证据开示制度比较及其对我国的启示
的直译是 “ 露” ,通常 与介 词 t搭配 ,意思是指 披 o
_ 0 一一 一_
赘、 冗长,但却具有证据开示的功能。而且 ,原告 还可以通过单独的开示申请 (l0dc e ) blfio r 要求被 i sv y
告提交文书,被告同样也可以通过交叉请求('S C — l  ̄ b1的方式要求原告开示相关事实和文书。普通法 i) l
0 。一 00。 。
对对方审理时将要出示的证据也一无所知。格林先 据开示程序确立的背景进行了描述: “ 诉状从来都
不是告知法院和对方律师案情的有效方式,因为诉 状很形式化、很概括,并不涉及证据。……因此 ,
生在 《 审理法院的任务》一文中对当时的状况和证 Cacy由九部分构成。其中最重要的三部分是: hne ) r
赋予 了普通法院命令证据开示的权力 , 但相对于衡
书工作”, 19 年的改革引入了 “ 93 披露”机制。强 制披露制度虽然没有改变证据提供义务时范围,只
是改变了提供的时问和条件 ,但与美国一直以来证
平法院 , 其命夸证据开示的权力要窄。1 3 17 8 至 85 7
的证据开示程序 , 但其中所蕴涵的思想和某些做法
对我国不无启 发。

讼被视作一场比 赛或斗争, 双方律师都极力为本方 当事人争取,直到法庭上决出胜负。其结果是判决
往往ቤተ መጻሕፍቲ ባይዱ决于律师的辩论技巧 ,而非案件的是非曲
直。鹿德称之为 ‘ 司法竞技理论’。直到 2 世纪 如 o 年代,一种新的诉讼理论出现才改变这一状况。这
中 山大 学法 学 论 坛
维普资讯
的叙述;质询部分( tr an r ,以向被告方提 ie o Ug a ) n rg p t 出质问的形式重复主张。0 可见,起诉状虽然很累

简论传闻证据规则发展趋向

简论传闻证据规则发展趋向

简论传闻证据规则的发展趋向【摘要】传闻证据规则是英美法系证据制度里的一项重要规则,但在司法实践中受到了越来越多的适用限制;尽管如此,在短期内却不会立即消亡。

在发展过程中日益简化,法典化趋势明显。

法官对传闻是否排除的自由裁量权也有逐渐增大的表现。

此外,很多大陆法系国家的立法和国际条约也借鉴了传闻证据规则的相关精髓。

这对我国未来的证据立法将具有重大启发意义。

【关键词】传闻证据规则;发展概况;例外规定;借鉴意义传闻证据规则,也称禁止传闻规则、传闻法则或传闻排除规则等,是英美法系证据法中最为著名的规则, 也是其中最为复杂的规则。

证据法学大师威格默尔(wigmore)教授曾盛赞其为英美法中除陪审团之外对审判程序做出了最伟大且最独特贡献的法律制度。

随着我国刑事诉讼法的修改再次被提上议事日程, 有关证据规则的研究热潮正方兴未艾。

在此背景下,从该规则发展演变的历史轨迹中,把握其最新的改革动向,无疑将对完善我国刑事证据立法具有重大的启发意义,本文的研究目的即在于此。

一、传闻证据规则概述1.传闻证据辨析按照美国证据法学家华尔兹教授的观点,传闻证据是指“在审判或听证时作证的证人以外的人所表达或做出的,被作为证据提出以证实其所主张的事实的真实性的,一种口头或书面的主张或有意无意地带有某种主张的非语言行为”。

由这个定义可以推导出传闻证据包括三种形式:口头传闻、书面传闻和行为传闻。

狭义的传闻证据专指“陈述”而言, 包括口头陈述和书面陈述,《美国联邦证据规则》第801条(c)项和《加利福尼亚州证据法典》即采用这种定义。

我国台湾学者也将传闻证据分为广、狭义两种。

“传闻证据,本有广狭二义,从狭义言,系专指言词而言,即证人并非陈述自己亲身经历之事实,而仅就他人在审判外所为之陈述原供述,代为提出以作自己之供述者而言。

从广义言,则除上述言词外,书面之陈述亦包括之,通常所谓传闻证据,系指广义而言,其范围包括口头陈述与书面陈述。

”2.传闻证据规则及其理论依据所谓传闻证据规则,简言之,即除法律规定的情况外,传闻证据不具有可采性。

论国际民事诉讼中专家证据的法律适用

论国际民事诉讼中专家证据的法律适用

2011年第10期山东社会科学No.10总第194期SHANDONG SOCIAL SCIENCES General No.194论国际民事诉讼中专家证据的法律适用刘艳娜王继福(燕山大学文法学院,河北秦皇岛066004)[摘要]专家证据是目前国际民事诉讼中应用越来越多的证据,但是两大法系对专家证据的规定存在很大差异。

传统国际私法规定适用法院地法,难以满足现代国际民事诉讼的需要。

我们需要在对专家证据进行合理定性的基础上,区分出其中的实体性证据规则和程序性证据规则,分别探讨其法律适用问题。

[关键词]国际民事诉讼;专家证据;法律适用[中图分类号]D997.3[文献标识码]A[文章编号]1003-4145[2011]10-0067-05在英美法系中,通常有关于专家证据的详细规定。

美国《联邦证据规则》第702条规定:“如果科学、技术或其他专业知识有助于案件事实审理者理解证据或确定系争事实,则具有本行业知识、技术、经验、训练或教育的专家可以充当证人。

”1999年英国的《统一民事诉讼规则》第425条第4款规定,专家是“在特殊领域具有知识(knowledge)和经验(experience),从而使得他在法庭所陈述的意见能够为法庭所采纳的人。

”由此可见,英美法对专家证人资格的规定比较宽泛,只要具有专门领域的知识或者是在平常工作中积累了经验,在专门领域内具有优越于常人的能力,可以帮助事实审理者,都可以作为专家证人,在法庭上提供专家证据,至于是否具有某种学位或者职称则在所不问。

专家证据在性质上属于证人证言。

大陆法系国家通常不规定专家证人,而代之以鉴定人,由鉴定人提供鉴定结论。

鉴定人通常是在专业领域内具有专门知识的具有高等教育程度的专业人士,他们帮助法官认识专门领域里的事实。

而且在一些大陆法系国家,鉴定人是在法官的指挥下提供鉴定结论,因此鉴定结论具有较高的证明效力。

大陆法系的鉴定结论在性质上往往不属于证人证言,而是一种独立的证据类型。

民事诉讼摘要简介擎(推荐)

民事诉讼摘要简介擎(推荐)

ËÎÌå摘要自认作为一项古老而重要的制度,是整个民事诉讼体系中不可缺少的一部分。

自认制度的合理运用有利于司法公正、提高诉讼效率、增加诉讼的校友。

受到世界大多数国家理论界的普遍关注,并构建起较为完善的诉讼制度。

随着我国民事司法体制的不断深入,当事人的程序主体地位不断上升,我国自认制度存在的缺陷也不断地显露出来,为完善诉讼程序、建立与之相适应的自认制度,保障当事人的合法权利,对自认制度的研究具有意义。

本文首先介绍了民事诉讼中自认的概念、性质、我国相关规定及自认的理论基础和诉讼价值,从整体上对我国民事诉讼中自认有了一个初步的了解。

其次介绍了外国对自认制度的相关规定,主要是以英美法系、大陆法系典型国家为代表,进行的介绍,并分析了对我国产生的借鉴意义。

最后通过对我国现状分析,发现问题并指出了理论与制度上的深层次原因,提出了建立辩论主义、改革诉讼模式、完善相关制度的建议。

关键词:自认民事诉讼性质效力民事诉讼中自认的概述民事诉讼中自认的概念及性质民事诉讼中自认的概念所谓诉讼中的自认是指当事人在诉讼中以承认对方当事人所主张的事实的方式作出的不利于己的陈述,该陈述构成民事诉讼中的自认,具有免除对方当事人证明责任的效力。

诉讼中的自认不同于诉讼外的自认。

所谓诉讼外的自认又称裁判外的自认,通常指在本案的诉讼程序外,一方对不利于已的事实或法律关系的承认,包括在其他诉讼过程中所作的自认。

诉讼中的自认免除了对方当事人的证明责任,法院一般依此认定案件事实;诉讼外的自认仅仅是作为当事人举证证明己方事实主张的一项证据,由法院审查判断其证明力。

因此,诉讼中的自认法律效力强于诉讼外的自认。

需要注意的是,此处的“诉讼中”,并不包括通常认为的当事人一方在诉讼中调解、和解中所作的陈述。

所以在诉讼中进行调解、和解时所作出的自认并不包括在内。

民事诉讼中自认的性质关于民事诉讼中自认的性质,学者们有不同的观点,主要有以下两点分歧:1、民事诉讼中自认是属于证据还是证据规则或是诉讼行为;2、民事诉讼中自认是意思表示还是观念通知。

论英美法系的书证规则及其启示

论英美法系的书证规则及其启示

论英美法系的书证规则及其启示摘要在英美法系书证规则中,最重要的就是最佳证据规则。

今天,人们普遍认为,在适用最佳证据规则的特定上下文中,应当对该规则进行限定性的表述。

在证明一项文书内容时,除非能够证明存在提出人的重大过失以外的其他原因,否则必须提出原始的文书。

社会的发展使得最佳证据规则的内涵也相应得到了不断地补充、完善。

关键词英美法系书证规则最佳证据规则作者简介:蔡文倩,华东政法大学。

中图分类号:d925文献标识码:a文章编号:1009-0592(2013)03-113-02一、英美法系书证规则概述(一)英美法系中书证的概念书证又称文书证据。

从当事人提供证据的角度来看,是指当事人向法院提交的有关案件事实的文书材料;从法院认定案件事实的角度来看,是指法官查阅后向法院提出的获悉相关事实的证据材料。

不论从何种角度出发,对书证的定义都离不开对文书的阐释。

随着社会科技的日益飞速发展,文书的外延在不断扩大。

1908年,darling法官在rv.daye一案中指出:“任何可能作为证据的书写之物,均可被描述为文书证据……而无论书写于何物之上,它可能书写在纸张上,这也是目前最常见的。

但在过去,最常见的却不是写在纸张上,而是在羊皮纸上。

在此之前,也曾经写在石头、大理石或黏土上。

”100多年后的今天,现代科技带给人类的副产品,包括照片、录制品、电影胶卷,以及由计算机代码编写而成的各类存储数据等都已经被纳入文书的范围中。

(二)英美法系对书证的分类书证的种类繁多,通过对书证的分类,掌握不同类别的书证各自的特点,从而在实践中合理、正确地使用。

1.公文性书证与非公文性书证根据书证是否系国家职能部门等依职权制定的,可将书证分为公文性书证和非公文性书证。

公文性书证是指公职人员依据其职责、为处理公共事务而制定的且允许公众援用的文书。

公文性文书具有以下特点:(1)它是制作和发出该文书的只能机关或单位依法行使职权的意思表示;(2)制作和发出该文书,应当具备法定的条件,在法律明确授予的权限范围内,依照法定程序和方式来进行。

书证含义研究

书证含义研究

书证含义研究一、国外书证的含义的比较在英美法系中,证据法学是一个独立的法学分支学科。

对于书证的界定各国在立法中多数加以规定。

英国在《民事诉讼规则》中对书证的界定是a.“书证”指记载任何描述信息之事物;以及b“副本”,是与书证相关,通过任何方式直接或者间接将书证所载信息复制至其上的事物。

美国的《联邦证据规则》规则1001对书证的界定是(1)文书与录音(2)照片(3)原件。

(4)复制品。

文书证据(documentaryevidence)或书证指法院从查阅向法院提出的文书得悉有关事实的证据。

澳大利亚联邦《1995年证据法》第47条书证的定义是(1)本部分所指“书证”指以其内容进行证明的书面文件(2)本部分所指“书证副本”,包括虽非所指确切复制文件但在有关方面等同于所指书证的副本。

日本民事诉讼法学家三月章在《日本民事诉讼法》中指出书证有两层涵义:1、所谓书证,系指查阅文书,以其记载的含义、内容作为证据资料的证据调查。

2、所谓书证,系指用文字及其它符号表现思想含义的有形物为标记或识别所制作的物品(如鞋标、界标等),视为书证,按书证的程序认定。

因为这些标识也有内容方面的问题。

从以上的列举中书证至少有以下几个共性:以内容来证明案件事实;有一定的载体为媒介;副本是书证的重要组成部分。

二、我国书证的含义的考察与剖析我国的三大诉讼法的法典,对表现证据内容的各种形式,均作了列举式的规定,并且认为这种列举是周延的。

这就是说,证明案件真实情况的一切事实,只有通过法律所罗列的证据形式表现出来,才能完成证明任务。

《民事诉讼法》和《行政诉讼法》中,书证都被列在七种证据形式之首。

法律作这样的规定,意味着就其形式而言,各种证据是彼此独立的;相互间不能交叉;也不能相互包容。

并且这种彼此独立不交叉不包容的各种证据形式之和,对于目前所有证明案件真实情况的证据内容的表现方式而言,是概括无遗的。

这就给证据理论工作者提出了一个基本的课题:必须准确地概括各种证据形式的内涵和外延,并把握其互相间的区别。

英国证据法flag test

英国证据法flag test

英国证据法Flag Test1. 简介英国证据法中的Flag Test是指一种判断证据可信度的标准。

该标准要求法庭在审查证据时,必须对证据的可信度进行全面的考量,包括证据的来源、真实性、完整性等方面的考量。

Flag Test被广泛运用于英国法庭,成为了判断证据有效性的重要标准之一。

2. Flag Test的内涵Flag Test的核心思想是通过对证据的多个方面进行综合评估,判断其可信度和可采纳性。

具体来说,Flag Test的内涵包括以下几个方面:2.1 证据的来源:法庭需要对证据的来源进行充分的调查和了解,判断证据的出处是否合法、可信。

2.2 证据的真实性:法庭需要对证据内容进行核实,判断其是否真实可靠。

2.3 证据的完整性:法庭需要考虑证据的完整性,是否有遗漏或篡改的可能。

3. Flag Test的适用范围Flag Test不仅适用于英国的刑事案件,也适用于民事案件和行政案件。

无论是对于原告提出的证据还是被告提出的抗辩证据,法庭都会依据Flag Test来进行评估,判断证据是否具有说服力。

4. Flag Test的实际应用在实际案件审理中,Flag Test被广泛应用于英国法庭。

司法机关会根据案件的具体情况,遵循Flag Test标准来判断证据的有效性。

在一些重大案件中,Flag Test的应用成为了审判过程中的关键环节,有助于保障司法公正和审理效率。

5. Flag Test的意义Flag Test的提出和应用,对于保障司法公正、有效审判具有重要意义。

通过Flag Test标准,法庭能够更加科学客观地判断证据的可信度,提高了判决的准确性和公信力。

Flag Test也对律师、法官等司法人员的工作提出了更高的要求,促使他们在收集、呈现证据时更加慎重、严谨。

6. 结语Flag Test作为英国证据法中的重要标准,对于保障司法公正,提高司法效率具有重要意义。

在实践中,法庭将继续依据Flag Test标准,全面评估证据的可信度,为每一起案件的审理提供科学、客观的依据。

1995英国民事证据法

1995英国民事证据法

Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c. 38)1995年英国民事证据法An Act to provide for the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the proof of certain documentary evidence and the admissibility and proof of official actuarial tables in civil proceedings; and for connectedpurposes.[8th November 1995]Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of theLords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in thispresent Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—Admissibility of hearsay evidenceAdmissibility of hearsay evidence.1.—(1) In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.(2) In this Act—(a) "hearsay" means a statement made otherwisethan by a person while giving oral evidence inthe proceedings which is tendered as evidenceof the matters stated; and(b) references to hearsay include hearsay ofwhatever degree.(3) Nothing in this Act affects the admissibility of evidence admissible apart from this section.(4) The provisions of sections 2 to 6 (safeguards and supplementary provisions relating to hearsay evidence) do not apply in relation to hearsay evidence admissible apart from this section, notwithstanding that it may also be admissible by virtue of this section.Safeguards in relation to hearsay evidenceNotice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence. 2.—(1) A party proposing to adduce hearsay evidence in civil proceedings shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, give to the other party or parties to the proceedings —(a) such notice (if any) of that fact, and(b) on request, such particulars of orrelating to the evidence,as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstancesfor the purpose of enabling him or them to deal withany matters arising from its being hearsay.(2) Provision may be made by rules of court —(a) specifying classes of proceedings orevidence in relation to which subsection (1)does not apply, and(b) as to the manner in which (including thetime within which) the duties imposed by thatsubsection are to be complied with in the caseswhere it does apply.(3) Subsection (1) may also be excluded byagreement of the parties; and compliance with the dutyto give notice may in any case be waived by the personto whom notice is required to be given.(4) A failure to comply with subsection (1), orwith rules under subsection (2)(b), does not affectthe admissibility of the evidence but may be taken intoaccount by the court —(a) in considering the exercise of its powerswith respect to the course of proceedings andcosts, and(b) as a matter adversely affecting the weightto be given to the evidence in accordance withsection 4.Power to call witness for cross-examination on hearsay statement. 3. Rules of court may provide that where a party to civil proceedings adduces hearsay evidence of a statement made by a person and does not call that person as a witness, any other party to the proceedings may, with the leave of the court, call that person as a witness and cross-examine him on the statement asif he had been called by the first-mentioned party andas if the hearsay statement were his evidence in chief.Considerations relevant to weighing of hearsay evidence.4.—(1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.(2) Regard may be had, in particular, to the following—(a) whether it would have been reasonable andpracticable for the party by whom the evidencewas adduced to have produced the maker of theoriginal statement as a witness;(b) whether the original statement was madecontemporaneously with the occurrence orexistence of the matters stated;(c) whether the evidence involves multiplehearsay;(d) whether any person involved had any motiveto conceal or misrepresent matters;(e) whether the original statement was anedited account, or was made in collaborationwith another or for a particular purpose;(f) whether the circumstances in which theevidence is adduced as hearsay are such as tosuggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluationof its weight.Supplementary provisions as to hearsayevidenceCompetence and credibility.5.—(1) Hearsay evidence shall not be admitted in civil proceedings if or to the extent that it is shown to consist of, or to be proved by means of, a statement made by a person who at the time he made the statement was not competent as a witness.For this purpose "not competent as a witness"means suffering from such mental or physicalinfirmity, or lack of understanding, as wouldrender a person incompetent as a witness incivil proceedings; but a child shall be treatedas competent as a witness if he satisfies therequirements of section 96(2)(a) and (b) of the[1989 c. 41.] Children Act 1989 (conditions forreception of unsworn evidence of child).(2) Where in civil proceedings hearsay evidence is adduced and the maker of the original statement, or of any statement relied upon to prove another statement, is not called as a witness—(a) evidence which if he had been so calledwould be admissible for the purpose of attackingor supporting his credibility as a witness isadmissible for that purpose in the proceedings;and(b) evidence tending to prove that, whetherbefore or after he made the statement, he madeany other statement inconsistent with it isadmissible for the purpose of showing that hehad contradicted himself.Provided that evidence may not be givenof any matter of which, if he had beencalled as a witness and had denied thatmatter in cross-examination, evidencecould not have been adduced by thecross-examining party.Previous statements of witnesses.6.—(1) Subject as follows, the provisions of this Act as to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings apply equally (but with any necessary modifications) in relation to a previous statement made by a person called as a witness in the proceedings.(2) A party who has called or intends to call a person as a witness in civil proceedings may not in those proceedings adduce evidence of a previous statement made by that person, except—(a) with the leave of the court, or(b) for the purpose of rebutting a suggestionthat his evidence has been fabricated.This shall not be construed as preventing awitness statement (that is, a written statementof oral evidence which a party to theproceedings intends to lead) from being adoptedby a witness in giving evidence or treated ashis evidence.(3) Where in the case of civil proceedings section 3, 4 or 5 of the [1865 c. 18.] Criminal Procedure Act 1865 applies, which make provision as to—(a) how far a witness may be discredited by theparty producing him,(b) the proof of contradictory statements madeby a witness, and(c) cross-examination as to previousstatements in writing,this Act does not authorise the adducing of evidenceof a previous inconsistent or contradictory statementotherwise than in accordance with those sections.This is without prejudice to any provision madeby rules of court under section 3 above (powerto call witness for cross-examination onhearsay statement).(4) Nothing in this Act affects any of the rulesof law as to the circumstances in which, where aperson called as a witness in civil proceedingsis cross-examined on a document used by him torefresh his memory, that document may be madeevidence in the proceedings.(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed aspreventing a statement of any descriptionreferred to above from being admissible by virtueof section 1 as evidence of the matters stated.Evidence formerly admissible at common law. 7.—(1) The common law rule effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(a) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968 (admissibility of admissions adverse to a party) is superseded by the provisionsof this Act.(2) The common law rules effectively preserved bysection 9(1) and (2)(b) to (d) of the [1968 c. 64.]Civil Evidence Act 1968, that is, any rule of lawwhereby in civil proceedings —(a) published works dealing with matters of apublic nature (for example, histories,scientific works, dictionaries and maps) areadmissible as evidence of facts of a publicnature stated in them,(b) public documents (for example, publicregisters, and returns made under publicauthority with respect to matters of publicinterest) are admissible as evidence of factsstated in them, or(c) records (for example, the records ofcertain courts, treaties, Crown grants, pardonsand commissions) are admissible as evidence offacts stated in them,shall continue to have effect.(3) The common law rules effectively preserved by section 9(3) and (4) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, that is, any rule of law whereby in civil proceedings—(a) evidence of a person's reputation isadmissible for the purpose of proving his goodor bad character, or(b) evidence of reputation or family traditionis admissible—(i) for the purpose of proving ordisproving pedigree or the existence ofa marriage, or(ii) for the purpose of proving ordisproving the existence of any public orgeneral right or of identifying anyperson or thing,shall continue to have effect in so far as theyauthorise the court to treat such evidence asproving or disproving that matter.Where any such rule applies, reputation orfamily tradition shall be treated for thepurposes of this Act as a fact and not as astatement or multiplicity of statements aboutthe matter in question.(4) The words in which a rule of law mentioned in this section is described are intended only to identify the rule and shall not be construed as altering it in any way.Other mattersProof of statements contained in documents.8.—(1) Where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in civil proceedings, it may be proved—(a) by the production of that document, or(b) whether or not that document is still inexistence, by the production of a copy of thatdocument or of the material part of it,authenticated in such manner as the court may approve.(2) It is immaterial for this purpose how many removes there are between a copy and the original.Proof of records of business or public authority.9.—(1) A document which is shown to form part of the records of a business or public authority may be received in evidence in civil proceedings without further proof.(2) A document shall be taken to form part of the records of a business or public authority if there is produced to the court a certificate to that effect signed by an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.For this purpose—(a) a document purporting to be acertificate signed by an officer of abusiness or public authority shall bedeemed to have been duly given by such anofficer and signed by him; and(b) a certificate shall be treated assigned by a person if it purports to beara facsimile of his signature.(3) The absence of an entry in the records of a business or public authority may be proved in civil proceedings by affidavit of an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.(4) In this section—"records" means records in whatever form;"business" includes any activity regularlycarried on over a period of time, whether forprofit or not, by any body (whether corporateor not) or by an individual;"officer" includes any person occupying aresponsible position in relation to therelevant activities of the business or publicauthority or in relation to its records; and"public authority" includes any public orstatutory undertaking, any governmentdepartment and any person holding office underHer Majesty.(5) The court may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, direct that all or any ofthe above provisions of this section do not apply inrelation to a particular document or record, ordescription of documents or records.Admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables. 10.—(1) The actuarial tables (together with explanatory notes) for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases issued from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department are admissible inevidence for the purpose of assessing, in an actionfor personal injury, the sum to be awarded as generaldamages for future pecuniary loss.(2) They may be proved by the production of a copypublished by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.(3) For the purposes of this section —(a) "personal injury" includes any disease andany impairment of a person's physical or mentalcondition; and(b) "action for personal injury" includes anaction brought by virtue of the [1934 c. 41.]Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934or the [1976 c. 30.] Fatal Accidents Act 1976.General Meaning of "civil proceedings". 11. In this Act "civil proceedings" means civil proceedings, before any tribunal, in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply, whether as a matterof law or by agreement of the parties.References to"the court" and "rules of court" shall be construedaccordingly.Provisions as to rules of court. 12.—(1) Any power to make rules of court regulating the practice or procedure of the court in relation to civil proceedings includes power to make suchprovision as may be necessary or expedient forcarrying into effect the provisions of this Act.(2) Any rules of court made for the purposes ofthis Act as it applies in relation to proceedings inthe High Court apply, except in so far as theiroperation is excluded by agreement, to arbitrationproceedings to which this Act applies, subject to suchmodifications as may be appropriate.Any question arising as to what modificationsare appropriate shall be determined, in default of agreement, by the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be.Interpretation.13. In this Act—"civil proceedings" has the meaning given bysection 11 and "court" and "rules of court"shall be construed in accordance with thatsection;"document" means anything in which informationof any description is recorded, and "copy" , inrelation to a document, means anything ontowhich information recorded in the document hasbeen copied, by whatever means and whetherdirectly or indirectly;"hearsay" shall be construed in accordance withsection 1(2);"oral evidence" includes evidence which, byreason of a defect of speech or hearing, a personcalled as a witness gives in writing or by signs;"the original statement", in relation tohearsay evidence, means the underlyingstatement (if any) by—(a) in the case of evidence of fact, aperson having personal knowledge of thatfact, or(b) in the case of evidence of opinion,the person whose opinion it is; and "statement" means any representation of fact oropinion, however made.Savings.14.—(1) Nothing in this Act affects the exclusion of evidence on grounds other than that it is hearsay.This applies whether the evidence falls to beexcluded in pursuance of any enactment or ruleof law, for failure to comply with rules of courtor an order of the court, or otherwise.(2) Nothing in this Act affects the proof ofdocuments by means other than those specified insection 8 or 9.(3) Nothing in this Act affects the operation ofthe following enactments—(a) section 2 of the [1868 c. 37.] DocumentaryEvidence Act 1868 (mode of proving certain official documents);(b) section 2 of the [1882 c. 9.] Documentary Evidence Act 1882 (documents printed under the superintendence of Stationery Office);(c) section 1 of the [1907 c. 16.] Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907 (proof of statutes of certain legislatures);(d) section 1 of the [1933 c. 4.] Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Act 1933 (proof and effect of registers and official certificates of certain countries);(e) section 5 of the [1963 c. 27.] Oaths and Evidence (Overseas Authorities and Countries) Act 1963 (provision in respect of public registers of other countries).Consequential amendments and repeals.15.—(1) The enactments specified in Schedule 1 are amended in accordance with that Schedule, the amendments being consequential on the provisions of this Act.(2) The enactments specified in Schedule 2 are repealed to the extent specified.Short title, commencement and extent.16.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Civil Evidence Act 1995.(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be appointed for different provisions and for different purposes.(3) An order under subsection (2) may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be appropriate; and subject to any such provision, the provisions of this Act shall not apply in relation to proceedings begun before commencement.(4) This Act extends to England and Wales.(5) Section 10 (admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables) also extends to Northern Ireland.As it extends to Northern Ireland, the followingshall be substituted for subsection (3)(b)—" (b) "action for personal injury"includes an action brought by virtue ofthe [1937 c. 9 (N.I.)] Law Reform(Miscellaneous Provisions) (NorthernIreland) Act 1937 or the [S. I. 1977/1251(N.I. 18).] Fatal Accidents (NorthernIreland) Order 1977."(6) The provisions of Schedules 1 and 2 (consequential amendments and repeals) have the same extent as the enactments respectively amended or repealed.。

英美法系民事证据开示制度检视及其启示

英美法系民事证据开示制度检视及其启示

英美法系民事证据开示制度检视及其启示夏先华【期刊名称】《《湖南工业大学学报(社会科学版)》》【年(卷),期】2019(024)004【总页数】7页(P118-124)【关键词】证据开示; 证据交换; 英美法系; 证据突袭【作者】夏先华【作者单位】中南财经政法大学法学院湖北武汉 430073【正文语种】中文【中图分类】D925.1民事诉讼是运用证据发现案件真实的过程,案件真实的发现应该依赖于诉讼双方在信息互通、证据清晰的前提下进行法庭质证与辩论,而非卖弄诉讼技巧,企图通过证据上的突袭等不正当手段,以获得有利的诉讼结果。

美国著名大法官特雷勒(Traynor)也曾说过:“真实不可能在诉讼突袭中发现,而最可能发现于一方当事人合理了解另一方时。

”[1]因而,在盛行对抗制文化的英美法系国家,为规避司法竞技模式所导致的举证突袭等弊病,其率先形成了证据开示制度。

我国的诉讼模式与司法体制虽不同于英美法系国家,但在当事人程序主导角色不断强化的现实背景下,证据突袭问题同样严重,因而也形成了与证据开示制度类似的民事证据交换制度。

本文以英美法系中民事证据开示制度为研究对象,在论述其基本法理、产生与发展、运作及现状的基础上,最终落脚于我国证据交换制度的实践,并据此提出相应的完善建议与对策。

一奠基:民事证据开示制度的理论透析(一)民事证据开示的基本内涵证据开示一词,来源于英文“discovery”,国内学者对此存在不同译法,有的译为“发现程序”(如沈达明在《比较民事诉讼法初论》中将其译作“发现程序”),有的译成“证据开示”(如张卫平在《外国民事证据制度研究》一书中将其译作“证据开示”)。

相较而言,“证据开示”的译法更为普遍,本文也采用这一表述。

另外,在英美法系国家,“证据开示”一词的具体表述也存在差异,英国法中使用“disclosure”,而美国诉讼规则中的对应词汇则为“discovery”。

尽管美国法中也存在“disclosure”的称谓,但其存在特定的指代,主要是指强制开示、当事人自主开示,与“discovery”的意涵并不一致。

第二章证据制度概述

第二章证据制度概述

• (1)主要内容是关于证据资格的规定; • 詹妮 · 麦克埃文将法官对事实认定的影响概括为以下几个 方面: • 其一,审理民事案件的法官在缺乏证据的情况下,有权就 事实问题形成自己的看法; • 其二,法官可以指示陪审团做无罪判决; • 其三,法官虽不能处理不确定的事实,但他可以自信地 向陪审团陈述某些事实; • 其四,法官可以就事实、证据问题向陪审团提供建议。 • (2)当事人及其诉讼代理人在法庭调查中扮演及其重要 的作用; • (3)证据法关注的较多的是给予当事人双方公平的机会; • (4)不仅关注发现真实的目标,而且注重其他的重大的 社会价值。
• • • • •
2、大陆法系国家和地区的立法模式 一般没有单独的证据法,证据法的内容体现于诉讼法之中。 其证据法的特征可以概括为: (1)事实认定和法律适用完全委托于法官; (2)法律一般不对证据能力加以特别的规定,而交由裁判 者自主判断; • (3)为防止裁判者自由擅断,关于证据方面的法律,一般 注重于证据调查方法的规定; • (4)证据的评价必须经过当事人的辩论,但又没有规定集 中审理原则。 • (5)近年来的发展倾向是增加资格方面的规定,建立多种 证据排除规则,以及特权规则。
• 3、结果说。证据是经过法庭上的公开调查并最终被证据调 查程序确定为可以作为事实认定或者否定依据的所有结果都 是证据。和原因说有许多相似之处。 • 不过该观点在证据概念之外,强调证据资格的法定性,重视 证据排除规则,注意诉讼中的多种价值目标。 • 4、材料说。力图从程序上界定证据。证据是当事人提出的 或者法院依职权收集的有可能证明案件事实或者削弱案件事 实证明的一切材料。 • 注意了诉讼的过程性和证据的程序性,降低了证据准入的门 槛,并且克服了事实说对证据的某些情况下主观形式的忽略 有所克服。 • 缺点增加了证据的不确定性。和证据的属性之间也缺乏联系。 • 5、证据材料和证据两分的证据概念。当事人提出的用以证 明案件事实或者削弱对案件事实的证明的一切材料,证据材 料。事实裁判者用以认定案件事实的、符合法律规定的形式 的一切材料和信息称为证据。

澳大利亚_1995年证据法_的立法技术及对普通法的变革_王进喜

澳大利亚_1995年证据法_的立法技术及对普通法的变革_王进喜

澳大利亚《1995年证据法》的立法技术及对普通法的变革王进喜*摘要:澳大利亚《1995年证据法》是按照审判活动中通常出现的证据事项的顺序组织的,它采用了娴熟的立法技术,使得该法清晰、可读,成为一部使用者友好型的立法。

从技术角度看,《1995年证据法》这种统一证据法并不是无所不包的证据法典,不是就普通法和早期的制定法所进行的重述。

它对许多普通法证据规则进行了重大改革,但是并没有完全取代普通法。

澳大利亚《1995年证据法》的立法技术和立法内容对于我们均具有重要的借鉴意义。

关键词:证据法澳大利亚《1995年证据法》立法技术证据法典澳大利亚证据法(the law of evidence )当前的样态,是由制定法、普通法和法院规则所组成的混合体。

1995年之前,澳大利亚的证据法主要表现为普通法,即法院在长期的历史中发展出的证据规则。

它们反映了各种原则和价值,因而缺乏连贯性和体系性,也因为复杂而难以查找。

本文将以澳大利亚联邦《1995年证据法》及其相应的修正为核心,对《统一证据法》的运作框架、政策背景、特点等事项进行说明,并据此略论我国相关立法的得失。

一、运作的政策框架审判程序在很大程度上是由证据法所决定的。

而审判程序是诉讼程序中最为核心、最为公开的部分,公众将通过对审判的观察,评估法律是否得以施行,正义是否得以实现。

因此,证据法是程序正义的重要组成部分。

澳大利亚法律改革委员会经过审慎的研究,将以下政策作为证据法的政策框架:第一,事实认定。

法院的事实认定在政策中被赋予了首要地位。

澳大利亚法律改革委员会认为,审判制度的可信性最终取决于其在事实认定方面的表现。

因此,证据法要使当事人能够提出他们能够得到的证据,从而促进准确事实认定。

第二,区分民事和刑事审判。

《1995年证据法》的一个重要特点,是没有就陪审团审判和非陪审团审判进行区分,而是对刑事程序和民事程序进行了区分。

尽管该法的某些·62·*中国政法大学证据科学研究院教授,法学博士。

证据法学(PPT版)

证据法学(PPT版)

入深水中,沉没无罪,浮出有罪
水审图
《汉穆拉比法典》第2条规定: “假若某人控他人行妖术, 而又不能证实此事,则被 控行妖术的人应走近河边, 投入河中。如果他被河水 制服,则揭发者可以取得 他的房屋;反之,如果河 水为他剖白,使之安然无 恙,则控他行妖术的人应 处死,而投河者取得揭发 者的房屋。”
第249条,“设若某人租用牡牛,而神击中它以致倒毙, 则租牛的人应凭神发誓并免除责任。”
水审:一般适用于盗窃或杀人等重大案件,分为冷水审和
热水审
A.冷水审:将被控告者投入河水中以判断其是否有罪的
方法
标准:a.沉没有罪,浮出无罪——《汉穆拉比法典》
b.沉没无罪,浮出有罪——古代日尔曼法
方法:将嫌疑人的手脚捆在一起,成弓背屈肢状,然后投
判例证据法
证据规则:
当事人之间的对抗
大陆法系 程序法、实体法混同
职权主义色彩
两大法系证据法模式的关联
n 两大法系证据法模式的差异客观存在,并不意味着每一法 系内部的证据法模式是完全一致的,也不意味着两大法系 之间没有共性。其实,无论是英美法系的证据法,还是大 陆法系的证据法,都有一些亚模式存在
程序法的价值:公平、正义、理性、文明、民主、效果等
证据法的实体性内容:证据法中有关证据能力、证明力、 证明责任、证明标准、证明对象等内容都具有实体规范性 质,具有实体法特性
证据法的程序性内容:关于收集证据、证据调查、质证、 认证等大量内容都属于程序范围
证据法具有实体与程序双重属性,具有实体与程序双重价 值
证据法学
第一章 证据法概述
❖ 证据法 ❖ 证据法属性 ❖ 证据立法的模式 ❖ 证据法渊源 ❖ 证据法与其他学科的关系
一、证据法

传闻证据排除规则——外国证据规则系列之三

传闻证据排除规则——外国证据规则系列之三

一、英美法上的“传闻证据”传闻证据是英美证据法上的传统概念之一。

在英美证据法上,传闻证据首先必须是一项陈述。

如果不属于陈述,则不可能属于传闻证据,相应地,也就不受传闻规则的调整。

在普通法上,陈述是一个十分宽泛的概念,包括意思表达的所有方式。

“在最为广义的普通法(与成文法不同的判例法)中,传闻证据的定义是:在审判或讯问时作证以外的人所表达或作出的,被作为证据提出以证实其所包括的事实是否真实的,一种口头或书面的意思表示或有意无意地带有某种意思表示的非语言行为。

”但是,在现代法中,多数国家和法域开始将“陈述”限定在较为狭窄的范围之内。

例如,《美国联邦证据规则》第801条规定:“一项陈述是指:(1)口头或书面的主张,或(2)个人非言词的行为,行为人意图以此来表示一个主张。

”即无意识行为已经不再属于法律意义上的“陈述”。

根据表现形式,英国学者J.D.海登将传闻证据分为以下两种:第一,当庭作证之证人以外的人所作的明示或默示主张;第二,向法庭提出的书证之中所包含的主张,包括亲身感受了案件事实的证人在庭审期日以外所作的书面证人证言以及警检人员所作的(证人)询问笔录。

但是,由于证人出庭以言词形式提供证言是直接言词原则的一般要求,而且在英美司法实践中,甚至实物证据也必须以证人证言的形式提出,所以,以书面记录代替证人出庭的第二类传闻证据较为少见。

在普通法上,传闻证据主要是指第一类传闻证据。

一般而言,作为传闻证据的陈述具有以下特点:(1)至少涉及两个陈述主体,一个是亲身感知了案件事实而具有个人知识的人A,一个是在庭审期日以证人身份出庭作证(或提出书面证据)的主体B;(2)至少涉及两个陈述环节,一个是陈述主体A在审判或讯问程序以外对B所作的陈述,一个是B 以证人身份在审判或讯问程序中向法庭所做的陈述(或以书面证据代为陈述)。

但是,应当指出的是,前后两个陈述的表现形式并不完全相同。

在审判或讯问程序中作为证人证言的陈述的一般表现形式是口头陈述;而陈述主体A向B所作的陈述,则包括一切能够表意的方式,如口头陈述、书面形式、有意识的非语言行为(如点头、手势等)。

第三章证据排除规则

第三章证据排除规则

传闻证据与传来证据
• 传来证据不是直接来源于案件的发生、发展运动过程,而 是由原始证据派生出来的证据,又称为第二手的材料。 • (1)适用范围不同。传来证据适用于各种二手材料、证 据,传闻证据只适用于证词、书面笔录证言以及其他具有 暗示意义的行为; • (2)划分标准不同。传来证据主要是依据来源;传闻证 据主要依据提供证词的人能否到庭陈述,能否为当事人交 叉询问之; • (3)确认效果不同。确认属于传闻证据的无证据资格, 确认传来证据与原始证据有较大差异的不可信,在英美法 系不可信是审判阶段衡量的内容; • (4)在英美法系的审查者不同,可信性审查属于事实裁 判者——陪审团,而证据资格的审查属于法官。
• 广义上看包括证人在庭外做的书面证词,被当事人收集提 交法庭作为认定案件事实的证据。 • 美国证据法学者罗特斯坦因(Rothstein)认为,“传闻证 据是在法庭之外作出却在法庭之内作为证据使用的口头的 或者书面的陈述,用于证明该证据本身所涉及事件的真实 性。”英国证据法学家麦考密克(McCormick)也认为传 闻证据是指在法院之外作出的、在法院之内作为证据使用 的陈述,或者是口头的,或者是书面的,用于证明该陈述 本身所声明的事件的真实性。(广义的角度)
2.具体内容
• W must take oath, i.e., solemnly promise to testify truthfully. (FRE 603) • b. W must testify from personal knowledge. (FRE 602) • c. W must preferably state facts rather than opinions. At common law this rule is sometimes stated as a firm requirement (although often loosely enforced). • 例外主要表现在以下几个方面: • Under FRE 701, W may give an opinion if it is: • (1)基于陈述者的合理理解; • (2)有助于事实发现者对案件事实的认定. • (3)专家证人所提供的证言。

论传闻法则保障被告人对质权的比较优势

论传闻法则保障被告人对质权的比较优势

21 O 1年 1 2月
De ., 01 c 2 1
论 传 闻法 则 保 障被 告 人 对 质权 的 比较 优 势
陈卫 东 , 简乐伟
( 中国人 民大学 法学 院 , 京 1 0 7 ) 北 0 8 2
[ 摘 要] 作 为英 美证 据 法 中最重要 的规 则之一 , 闻法 则近年 来 虽然对传 闻的 限制逐 渐放 宽 , 传 但 其根 基并 未动摇 。为 了解 决我 国刑 事诉讼 中证人 出庭 率低 、 书面审理 方式使 用率 高这 一难题 , 学 法
较 多依赖 书面证 言 等 问 题 , 究 者 给 出了不 同 的解 研 决方 案 , 就是 否引入 传 闻法 则 而言 , 主要有 两种 不 同
的 观点 :
官越 来越 成为 不断发 展着 的复杂 救济 形式 的创造 者 和管理 者 , 动司法倾 向十分 突出 , 得法 官不 断地 能 使 主动介 入案件 的审 判 。 从 上述 对 待传 闻法则 的不 同观 点来 看 , 定 者 肯
式 下 , 国同样 由职业 法 官 行使 对 证 据 证 明能 力 的 我 判 断 , 这一 前 提 下 引入 传 闻 法 则 , 乏 引 入 的 基 在 缺 础 。我 国现 阶段 “ 法 模 式 ” 于 上升 地 位 , 判 法 公 处 审

对 待 传 闻 法 则 的 现 有 观 点
针对 我 国司法 实 践 中证 人基 本 上 不 出庭 , 判 审
从传 闻法 则 的内涵 解读 着 手 , 评 析 对 待传 闻法 则 在 不 同观点 的基础 上 , 提炼 出争论 的核 心 问题 , 而 回 从 应对 传 闻法则 的主 要 质 疑 , 进而 讨 论 促 进传 闻法 则 发挥 效用 的配套 制度 。

英国司法改革与证据制度的发展.doc

英国司法改革与证据制度的发展.doc

英国司法改革与证据制度的发展.doc英国司法改革与证据制度的发展-一、英国证据制度概述(一)历史沿革证据是审判的基础,证据制度是制度的核心。

19世纪初期英国著名法学家边沁曾经说过:程序法的直接目的是保证公正的判决,即将有效的法律正确地适用于真实的案件事实;而这必须以相关的证据为依据。

[1]然而在很长的一段历史时期内,英国司法审判受神示证据制度的统治,“神明裁判”与“司法决斗”成为中决定是非曲直的标准,证据在中既没有地位,也没有意义。

具有实质意义的证据制度是随着审判方式的变化,随着理性司法证明方式登上历史舞台,在中世纪司法实践中积累的一些零星的证据规则基础上逐渐产生与发展起来的。

至于现代意义上的英国证据制度,则溯源于17世纪至18世纪英国司法审判中出现的以证据的种类、方法及采纳标准等为内容的比较系统的证据规则。

[2]因此,英国虽然在较长的司法实践中“积累了某些证据经验,但真正意义上的证据法距今不过三个世纪。

”[3]通过司法判例中确立的证据规则发展起来的英国证据法基本上不区分民事证据与刑事证据,但是英国从19世纪开始进行的一系列证据规则的编纂却“逐渐形成了民事证据法与刑事证据法在法律规范表现形式上的分立。

”[4] 英国在民事领域的证据立法相对较少,最为重要的是1968、1972、1995年的三部《民事证据法》(Civil Evidence Act)。

应当强调的是,英国于20世纪90年代中期开始启动的民事司法改革已经对其民事诉讼中证据规则的施行产生了重大的影响。

这次民事司法改革的成果集中体现为1999年4月26日开始生效的《民事诉讼规则》,并逐步通过《诉讼指引》的过渡性条款,对原有的民事证据法进行了较大的修改。

相对于民事证据法,英国在刑事证据方面的立法更为丰富。

1964~1972年,刑事法律修订委员会对刑事案件中的证据法进行了全面审查,并且将建议集中在一个引起很大争议的报告-第十一次报告-“证据(总则)”中,于1972年6月公开发表。

电子证据的发展历程及应用思考_蒋平

电子证据的发展历程及应用思考_蒋平

电子证据的发展历程及应用思考蒋平摘要随着计算机应用和网络的普及,作为一种全新的证据形式,电子证据正发挥着越来越重要的作用。

公安司法机关应针对当前形势下电子证据立法和使用中存在的法律和技术的“双重瓶颈”难以突破、相关部门人员的沟通和协调难以取得成效、电子数据提取分析鉴定过程存在较多隐患、设备滞后等问题,从系统电子证据的法律体系、完善电子数据鉴定的行业规范、开展电子证据技术工具研究和研发、加强司法专业技术力量培训等方面入手,推动电子证据在公安司法机关工作中的广泛应用。

关键词电子证据法律定位应用思考随着计算机应用的普及和网络技术的发展,作为一种新兴刑事犯罪形式,计算机犯罪已经呈现出迅速蔓延的趋势,该类犯罪的很多证据都以数字形式通过计算机或网络存储和传输,从而出现了电子证据(Electronic Evidences)。

电子证据是指以储存的电子化信息资料来证明案件真实情况的电子物品或者电子记录。

特别是在电子技术飞速发展的今天,电子证据出现的频率越来越高,范围越来越广。

作为调整社会、政治秩序的工具,法律也逐渐接受和使用了电子证据这一新型证据。

有学者甚至提出,电子证据是信息世界的“证据之王”。

2012年3月14日,全国人民代表大会第五次会议通过《刑事诉讼法》修正决定,将电子数据规定为一种独立的证据形式。

这条规定最终确立了电子证据作为一种独立的证据形式并列于其他证据形式的法律地位。

一、他山之石:国外有关电子证据的立法情况“电子证据是人类社会科学技术发展到一定水平的产物,是以电子计算机技术的发展为前提条件的。

没有电子技术、没有计算机技术,就不会有电子证据。

”“电子证据”这一词汇在何时首次被使用,现已无从考证,但在二十世纪五十年代之前从未有人使用过这类词汇。

“电子证据”及其相似词汇是在二十世纪五十年代以后,伴随着计算机、互联网的相继发明和应用才出现的。

所以,在计算机和网络比较发达的国家,有关电子证据的立法也相应完善和规范。

论外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题

论外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题

论外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题论外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题欧福永• 2013-04-01 21:05:11 来源:《西南政法大学学报》(重庆)2007年5期内容提要:我国关于外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题的立法及司法实践都仍存在一些不足。

对于外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题,国际上主要有以下解决办法:推定外国法与法院地法相同并适用法院地法;法院地法作为辅助性准据法;驳回当事人的诉讼请求和抗辩;适用与本来应适用的法律相类似的外国法;适用辅助性连结点再次选择准据法;适用与当事人有最密切联系的国家的法律;适用一般法律原则。

我国应借鉴他国法律规定的合理成分,在直接适用法院地法的做法上补之以适用与该外国法相类似的法律和与当事人有最密切联系的国家的法律以及一般法律原则作为选择。

关键词:外国法无法查明法院地法驳回诉讼请求和抗辩辅助性连结点最密切联系一般法律原则作者简介:欧福永,湖南师范大学法学院,湖南长沙410081欧福永(1975—),男,湖南宁远人,湖南师范大学法学院副教授,法学博士、博士后研究人员。

一、引言为了公正、合理地解决涉外民商事争议,依照国际私法的冲突规范(包括基于当事人意思自治原则)确定准据法是法院、仲裁机构和行政机关不可回避的任务。

我国的法院、仲裁机构和行政机关不仅要适用中国法,也要在应当适用外国法①时适用外国法。

在适用外国法的情形下,如法院、仲裁机构、行政机关或者诉讼当事人按照法院地法律规定的方法和途径无法获得或确知该外国法的具体内容或者该外国法根本没有相应的规定时,法院、仲裁机构或者行政机关对案件应依据什么标准做出判决呢?由于这个问题直接关系到案件的审理和判决结果,对法院、仲裁机构和行政机关以及当事人而言都是非常重要的。

本文在检讨我国立法与实践存在的不足并分析国际上解决外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题的主要方法的基础上,提出了完善我国相关立法的建议。

二、我国关于外国法无法查明时的法律适用的立法与实践(一)立法现状分析目前我国在立法上尚未对外国法无法查明时的法律适用问题做出规定,但司法解释的规定前后有些细微变化。

  1. 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性,平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
  2. 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
  3. 3、如文档侵犯您的权益,请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间:9:00-18:30)。

Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c. 38)1995年英国民事证据法An Act to provide for the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the proof of certain documentary evidence and the admissibility and proof of official actuarial tables in civil proceedings; and for connectedpurposes.[8th November 1995]Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of theLords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in thispresent Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—Admissibility of hearsay evidenceAdmissibility of hearsay evidence.1.—(1) In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.(2) In this Act—(a) "hearsay" means a statement made otherwisethan by a person while giving oral evidence inthe proceedings which is tendered as evidenceof the matters stated; and(b) references to hearsay include hearsay ofwhatever degree.(3) Nothing in this Act affects the admissibility of evidence admissible apart from this section.(4) The provisions of sections 2 to 6 (safeguards and supplementary provisions relating to hearsay evidence) do not apply in relation to hearsay evidence admissible apart from this section, notwithstanding that it may also be admissible by virtue of this section.Safeguards in relation to hearsay evidenceNotice of proposal to adduce hearsay evidence. 2.—(1) A party proposing to adduce hearsay evidence in civil proceedings shall, subject to the following provisions of this section, give to the other party or parties to the proceedings —(a) such notice (if any) of that fact, and(b) on request, such particulars of orrelating to the evidence,as is reasonable and practicable in the circumstancesfor the purpose of enabling him or them to deal withany matters arising from its being hearsay.(2) Provision may be made by rules of court —(a) specifying classes of proceedings orevidence in relation to which subsection (1)does not apply, and(b) as to the manner in which (including thetime within which) the duties imposed by thatsubsection are to be complied with in the caseswhere it does apply.(3) Subsection (1) may also be excluded byagreement of the parties; and compliance with the dutyto give notice may in any case be waived by the personto whom notice is required to be given.(4) A failure to comply with subsection (1), orwith rules under subsection (2)(b), does not affectthe admissibility of the evidence but may be taken intoaccount by the court —(a) in considering the exercise of its powerswith respect to the course of proceedings andcosts, and(b) as a matter adversely affecting the weightto be given to the evidence in accordance withsection 4.Power to call witness for cross-examination on hearsay statement. 3. Rules of court may provide that where a party to civil proceedings adduces hearsay evidence of a statement made by a person and does not call that person as a witness, any other party to the proceedings may, with the leave of the court, call that person as a witness and cross-examine him on the statement asif he had been called by the first-mentioned party andas if the hearsay statement were his evidence in chief.Considerations relevant to weighing of hearsay evidence.4.—(1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.(2) Regard may be had, in particular, to the following—(a) whether it would have been reasonable andpracticable for the party by whom the evidencewas adduced to have produced the maker of theoriginal statement as a witness;(b) whether the original statement was madecontemporaneously with the occurrence orexistence of the matters stated;(c) whether the evidence involves multiplehearsay;(d) whether any person involved had any motiveto conceal or misrepresent matters;(e) whether the original statement was anedited account, or was made in collaborationwith another or for a particular purpose;(f) whether the circumstances in which theevidence is adduced as hearsay are such as tosuggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluationof its weight.Supplementary provisions as to hearsayevidenceCompetence and credibility.5.—(1) Hearsay evidence shall not be admitted in civil proceedings if or to the extent that it is shown to consist of, or to be proved by means of, a statement made by a person who at the time he made the statement was not competent as a witness.For this purpose "not competent as a witness"means suffering from such mental or physicalinfirmity, or lack of understanding, as wouldrender a person incompetent as a witness incivil proceedings; but a child shall be treatedas competent as a witness if he satisfies therequirements of section 96(2)(a) and (b) of the[1989 c. 41.] Children Act 1989 (conditions forreception of unsworn evidence of child).(2) Where in civil proceedings hearsay evidence is adduced and the maker of the original statement, or of any statement relied upon to prove another statement, is not called as a witness—(a) evidence which if he had been so calledwould be admissible for the purpose of attackingor supporting his credibility as a witness isadmissible for that purpose in the proceedings;and(b) evidence tending to prove that, whetherbefore or after he made the statement, he madeany other statement inconsistent with it isadmissible for the purpose of showing that hehad contradicted himself.Provided that evidence may not be givenof any matter of which, if he had beencalled as a witness and had denied thatmatter in cross-examination, evidencecould not have been adduced by thecross-examining party.Previous statements of witnesses.6.—(1) Subject as follows, the provisions of this Act as to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings apply equally (but with any necessary modifications) in relation to a previous statement made by a person called as a witness in the proceedings.(2) A party who has called or intends to call a person as a witness in civil proceedings may not in those proceedings adduce evidence of a previous statement made by that person, except—(a) with the leave of the court, or(b) for the purpose of rebutting a suggestionthat his evidence has been fabricated.This shall not be construed as preventing awitness statement (that is, a written statementof oral evidence which a party to theproceedings intends to lead) from being adoptedby a witness in giving evidence or treated ashis evidence.(3) Where in the case of civil proceedings section 3, 4 or 5 of the [1865 c. 18.] Criminal Procedure Act 1865 applies, which make provision as to—(a) how far a witness may be discredited by theparty producing him,(b) the proof of contradictory statements madeby a witness, and(c) cross-examination as to previousstatements in writing,this Act does not authorise the adducing of evidenceof a previous inconsistent or contradictory statementotherwise than in accordance with those sections.This is without prejudice to any provision madeby rules of court under section 3 above (powerto call witness for cross-examination onhearsay statement).(4) Nothing in this Act affects any of the rulesof law as to the circumstances in which, where aperson called as a witness in civil proceedingsis cross-examined on a document used by him torefresh his memory, that document may be madeevidence in the proceedings.(5) Nothing in this section shall be construed aspreventing a statement of any descriptionreferred to above from being admissible by virtueof section 1 as evidence of the matters stated.Evidence formerly admissible at common law. 7.—(1) The common law rule effectively preserved by section 9(1) and (2)(a) of the [1968 c. 64.] Civil Evidence Act 1968 (admissibility of admissions adverse to a party) is superseded by the provisionsof this Act.(2) The common law rules effectively preserved bysection 9(1) and (2)(b) to (d) of the [1968 c. 64.]Civil Evidence Act 1968, that is, any rule of lawwhereby in civil proceedings —(a) published works dealing with matters of apublic nature (for example, histories,scientific works, dictionaries and maps) areadmissible as evidence of facts of a publicnature stated in them,(b) public documents (for example, publicregisters, and returns made under publicauthority with respect to matters of publicinterest) are admissible as evidence of factsstated in them, or(c) records (for example, the records ofcertain courts, treaties, Crown grants, pardonsand commissions) are admissible as evidence offacts stated in them,shall continue to have effect.(3) The common law rules effectively preserved by section 9(3) and (4) of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, that is, any rule of law whereby in civil proceedings—(a) evidence of a person's reputation isadmissible for the purpose of proving his goodor bad character, or(b) evidence of reputation or family traditionis admissible—(i) for the purpose of proving ordisproving pedigree or the existence ofa marriage, or(ii) for the purpose of proving ordisproving the existence of any public orgeneral right or of identifying anyperson or thing,shall continue to have effect in so far as theyauthorise the court to treat such evidence asproving or disproving that matter.Where any such rule applies, reputation orfamily tradition shall be treated for thepurposes of this Act as a fact and not as astatement or multiplicity of statements aboutthe matter in question.(4) The words in which a rule of law mentioned in this section is described are intended only to identify the rule and shall not be construed as altering it in any way.Other mattersProof of statements contained in documents.8.—(1) Where a statement contained in a document is admissible as evidence in civil proceedings, it may be proved—(a) by the production of that document, or(b) whether or not that document is still inexistence, by the production of a copy of thatdocument or of the material part of it,authenticated in such manner as the court may approve.(2) It is immaterial for this purpose how many removes there are between a copy and the original.Proof of records of business or public authority.9.—(1) A document which is shown to form part of the records of a business or public authority may be received in evidence in civil proceedings without further proof.(2) A document shall be taken to form part of the records of a business or public authority if there is produced to the court a certificate to that effect signed by an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.For this purpose—(a) a document purporting to be acertificate signed by an officer of abusiness or public authority shall bedeemed to have been duly given by such anofficer and signed by him; and(b) a certificate shall be treated assigned by a person if it purports to beara facsimile of his signature.(3) The absence of an entry in the records of a business or public authority may be proved in civil proceedings by affidavit of an officer of the business or authority to which the records belong.(4) In this section—"records" means records in whatever form;"business" includes any activity regularlycarried on over a period of time, whether forprofit or not, by any body (whether corporateor not) or by an individual;"officer" includes any person occupying aresponsible position in relation to therelevant activities of the business or publicauthority or in relation to its records; and"public authority" includes any public orstatutory undertaking, any governmentdepartment and any person holding office underHer Majesty.(5) The court may, having regard to the circumstances of the case, direct that all or any ofthe above provisions of this section do not apply inrelation to a particular document or record, ordescription of documents or records.Admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables. 10.—(1) The actuarial tables (together with explanatory notes) for use in personal injury and fatal accident cases issued from time to time by the Government Actuary's Department are admissible inevidence for the purpose of assessing, in an actionfor personal injury, the sum to be awarded as generaldamages for future pecuniary loss.(2) They may be proved by the production of a copypublished by Her Majesty's Stationery Office.(3) For the purposes of this section —(a) "personal injury" includes any disease andany impairment of a person's physical or mentalcondition; and(b) "action for personal injury" includes anaction brought by virtue of the [1934 c. 41.]Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934or the [1976 c. 30.] Fatal Accidents Act 1976.General Meaning of "civil proceedings". 11. In this Act "civil proceedings" means civil proceedings, before any tribunal, in relation to which the strict rules of evidence apply, whether as a matterof law or by agreement of the parties.References to"the court" and "rules of court" shall be construedaccordingly.Provisions as to rules of court. 12.—(1) Any power to make rules of court regulating the practice or procedure of the court in relation to civil proceedings includes power to make suchprovision as may be necessary or expedient forcarrying into effect the provisions of this Act.(2) Any rules of court made for the purposes ofthis Act as it applies in relation to proceedings inthe High Court apply, except in so far as theiroperation is excluded by agreement, to arbitrationproceedings to which this Act applies, subject to suchmodifications as may be appropriate.Any question arising as to what modificationsare appropriate shall be determined, in default of agreement, by the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be.Interpretation.13. In this Act—"civil proceedings" has the meaning given bysection 11 and "court" and "rules of court"shall be construed in accordance with thatsection;"document" means anything in which informationof any description is recorded, and "copy" , inrelation to a document, means anything ontowhich information recorded in the document hasbeen copied, by whatever means and whetherdirectly or indirectly;"hearsay" shall be construed in accordance withsection 1(2);"oral evidence" includes evidence which, byreason of a defect of speech or hearing, a personcalled as a witness gives in writing or by signs;"the original statement", in relation tohearsay evidence, means the underlyingstatement (if any) by—(a) in the case of evidence of fact, aperson having personal knowledge of thatfact, or(b) in the case of evidence of opinion,the person whose opinion it is; and "statement" means any representation of fact oropinion, however made.Savings.14.—(1) Nothing in this Act affects the exclusion of evidence on grounds other than that it is hearsay.This applies whether the evidence falls to beexcluded in pursuance of any enactment or ruleof law, for failure to comply with rules of courtor an order of the court, or otherwise.(2) Nothing in this Act affects the proof ofdocuments by means other than those specified insection 8 or 9.(3) Nothing in this Act affects the operation ofthe following enactments—(a) section 2 of the [1868 c. 37.] DocumentaryEvidence Act 1868 (mode of proving certain official documents);(b) section 2 of the [1882 c. 9.] Documentary Evidence Act 1882 (documents printed under the superintendence of Stationery Office);(c) section 1 of the [1907 c. 16.] Evidence (Colonial Statutes) Act 1907 (proof of statutes of certain legislatures);(d) section 1 of the [1933 c. 4.] Evidence (Foreign, Dominion and Colonial Documents) Act 1933 (proof and effect of registers and official certificates of certain countries);(e) section 5 of the [1963 c. 27.] Oaths and Evidence (Overseas Authorities and Countries) Act 1963 (provision in respect of public registers of other countries).Consequential amendments and repeals.15.—(1) The enactments specified in Schedule 1 are amended in accordance with that Schedule, the amendments being consequential on the provisions of this Act.(2) The enactments specified in Schedule 2 are repealed to the extent specified.Short title, commencement and extent.16.—(1) This Act may be cited as the Civil Evidence Act 1995.(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Lord Chancellor may appoint by order made by statutory instrument, and different days may be appointed for different provisions and for different purposes.(3) An order under subsection (2) may contain such transitional provisions as appear to the Lord Chancellor to be appropriate; and subject to any such provision, the provisions of this Act shall not apply in relation to proceedings begun before commencement.(4) This Act extends to England and Wales.(5) Section 10 (admissibility and proof of Ogden Tables) also extends to Northern Ireland.As it extends to Northern Ireland, the followingshall be substituted for subsection (3)(b)—" (b) "action for personal injury"includes an action brought by virtue ofthe [1937 c. 9 (N.I.)] Law Reform(Miscellaneous Provisions) (NorthernIreland) Act 1937 or the [S. I. 1977/1251(N.I. 18).] Fatal Accidents (NorthernIreland) Order 1977."(6) The provisions of Schedules 1 and 2 (consequential amendments and repeals) have the same extent as the enactments respectively amended or repealed.。

相关文档
最新文档