cpr rules on evidence

[atticus]

This may give the OP grounds for appeal. I strongly advise him to spend time studying the judgment so as to understand the full details of the judge's reasons. The OP does not need to add to his long list of courtroom failures.

[shootist]

Section 9 Criminal Justice Act 1967.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/evidence-admitting-evidence-under-sections-9-and-10-criminal-justice-act-1967

Section 9
In any criminal proceedings (other than committal proceedings) section 9 provides that a written statement is admissible in evidence to the same extent as oral evidence.

Section 5B Magistrates' Court Act 1980 makes similar provisions for committal proceedings.

Requirements
The use of the provision requires compliance with certain formalities set out in section 9(2):

the statement must be signed by the witness;
there must be a declaration of truthfulness;
the statement must be served properly on other parties; and
there must be no objections to the tendering of the statement in evidence.
There are further conditions in section 9(3) concerning:

witnesses who are under 18;
witnesses who cannot read;
provision of copies of exhibits.
It remains open to the party serving the statement to call the witness to give oral evidence instead of its being read (section 9(4)(a)). The court may of its own motion, or on application from any party to the proceedings, require the witness to attend (section 9(4)(b)).

A statement must be read aloud in court to be admissible under section 9, unless the court directs that an oral account may be given instead ( section 9(6)).

Scope
Evidence in a statement read in accordance with the provisions of section 9 is not conclusive evidence. It is evidence only to the same extent as if the maker had given orally the evidence contained in the statement. (Lister v Quaife [1982] 75 Cr App R313).

A party who has agreed a section 9 statement may therefore comment on the value or significance of the evidence in the statement.

[atticus]

The CPR to which the OP refers are the CIVIL Procedure Rules. He is talking about a civil action.

[preacherman]

This may give the OP grounds for appeal. I strongly advise him to spend time studying the judgment so as to understand the full details of the judge's reasons. The OP does not need to add to his long list of courtroom failures.

I dont have any written judgement, just an order and personal recollection.

Have you ever had a judge who got her laptop out half way through the hearing and was typing, and looking up every so often as if she was listening? It was a first for me personally, been before everyone from LJ Levison to district judges. When i said that D was being very dishonest, I was told 'comments like that wont help you', but it was a factual statement regarding defence of D not a 'comment'.

[preacherman]

The CPR to which the OP refers are the CIVIL Procedure Rules. He is talking about a civil action.

what about rules of evidence being more relaxed for small claims?

[atticus]

You will be familiar with CPR 27.2. This lists those rules which do not apply to claims allocated to the Small Claims track.

[preacherman]

so I am stuffed then! regarding witness and evidence.

only this applies

(2) The court may use its power under this rule to exclude evidence that would otherwise be admissible.

whats the point of having a court hearing if anyone can just tell porkys!