The following passages, which are both taken from a widely used legal textbook, explain two contrasts. The fi rst distinguishes ‘direct evidence’ from ‘circumstantial evidence’, and the second...

The following passages, which are both taken from a widely used legal textbook, explain two contrasts. The fi rst distinguishes ‘direct evidence’ from ‘circumstantial evidence’, and the second distinguishes ‘original evidence’ from ‘hearsay evidence’. Rephrase both to explain the differences to a friend – giving your own examples.

5.9.1 Direct evidence consists either of the testimony of a witness who perceived the fact to be proved or the production of a document or thing which constitutes the fact to be proved. Circumstantial evidence is the testimony of a witness who perceived not the fact to be proved but another fact from which the existence or non-existence of that fact can be deduced, or the production of a document or thing from which the fact to be proved can be deduced. Suppose the fact at issue is whether A used a certain knife. If T says he saw A use the knife, he is giving direct evidence of a fact at issue; if T says he saw the knife in A’s hand he is giving direct evidence of possession but only circumstantial evidence of A’s using the knife. If T says he saw the knife among A’s belongings he is giving circumstantial evidence of A’s possession of the knife and circumstantial evidence of A’s using the knife. All witnesses necessarily give direct evidence of whatever it was they perceived. (Phipson and Elliott, 1980, p. 11)

5.9.2 Original evidence is the evidence of a witness who deposes to facts of his own knowledge. If his information is derived from other persons and he himself has no personal knowledge of the facts to which he deposes, then his evidence is said to be hearsay. (Phipson and Elliott, 1980, p. 12)