Oldwage: If the relevance is establish separate to the entirety then it in its truthfulness. We see on many occasions on expert reports, contain references to collateral sources consultated.
Oldwage: The end result of all of this must be, once the relevance of it is established. These communications are not tendered in evidence but to show the truthfulness of the matter.
Oldwage: My lady with respect, there is none the less the onence on the person to prove. The relevance of this communication has already been established.
Oldwage: I am not seeking, to invoke the provisions. My lady, if it should be found that the ladyship ruling is hearsay. Then I ask that we address this issue on the conclusion at the end of Prof. Derman's testimony.
Oldwage: A number of considerations will be addressed, but also in cross-examinations.
Oldwage: The value of the evidence, the reason why this individual so called reporter of this evidence. Can be called to court.
Oldwage: It will become clear once Prof. Derman has finished his testimony. I will ask with respect to along for the reception of this evidence. It will prove to be in the interest of justice.
Oldwage: My lady, when you hear the evidence of Prof. Derman, it will not be on him having to rely on the truth of the information that he has received.
Oldwage: My lady in conclusion is that my submission is that this is not hearsay evidence.
Nel: My lady, I have now heard that I never made an objection. I have heard that Mr. Oldwage takes exception to my objection.
Nel: I summarized what Mr. Oldwage has argued. It is statements from a non-witness that we cannot cross-examine.
Nel: My lady, what I haven't heard is what is the purpose is but at the end I heard the purpose was to support the Professors' findings.
Nel: I have been waiting, my lady. Nothing came to the for, except at the end. The professor will not rely on the truth of those two emails only to supplement the findings.
Nel: My lady I have now read it. It one reads the email. To deal with this in a vacuum, is the incorrect way of going about it.
Nel: How can that be relevant.
Nel: "Still at 50, my fight /flight response is still faster than others"
Nel: How can we test that. This person is not available. It is not relelevant, by including it in here to supplement later. It is evidence of a non-witness.
Nel: My argument is that the court has not been convinced.
Nel: My lady, there is always a way of dealing with something. There should be a different aspect when dealing with an expert.
Judge: The defense has sought to introduce certain evidence. The basis of the objection is two fold. It is hearsay and in any event irrelevant.
Judge: Counsel for the defense has argued that it is neither hearsay or irrelevant. Before I give my ruling.
Judge: The evidence is light is in the report compiled by Prof. Derman. The evidence consists from two emails from people who have similar disabilities as the accused.
Judge: Counsel for the defense also felt that court normally accept evidence from an expert who have used sources for their report.
Judge: In the present case, the sources are two individuals that refer to their own circumstances. These circumstances cannot be irrelevant to this matter.
Judge: The judge in the matter of L. Dawn vs Landbou, quoted "If on the other hand it they attended to prove what is asserted. If what they intended to prove is relevant to the enquiry"
Judge: Defense counsel seems to have overlooked the admissible. Defense have not stated why it is relevant.
Judge: I think such an exercise would be fruitless. One cannot use the evidence to supplement the report.
Judge: My findings is that the two emails in the report by Prof. Derman are hearsay evidence and are irrelevant.
Judge: In addition, the portion of the email on page 27, that has already been read into the record be removed.
Oldwage: I refer you to paragraph 33, of your report.
WD: My lady, paragraph 33, I state that I am of the view that there is truth in the claims for victims to attack persons with disabilities.
WD: In one such incident, I was on a train with an athlete in a wheel chair, when a drunk attack happened against the disabled person.
WD: Recent analysis, copies of which are included here in. The studies show that there are higher attacks against disabled persons then that of able bodied persons.
WD: I drew your attention to this publication, on pages 31.
WD: Under the findings, I read the last three sentences.
WD: Interpretation is that adults with disabilities are at a higher risk then that of non disabled adults.
WD: Paragraph 36, a further study. Published in 2014, study found in 2012.