Discussion about Charles Spencer's book - Swan Song : Diana, my sister , Beautiful, Beloved, Hunted.

[BasiliskStare]

I know there is a thread about the theft of some pre publication editions of this book.
This thread is more by way of a book club discussion about the actual book , the text. Threads will go where they will , but my intention is this is more for me to give my opinion on the book and for others who read it or are interested in the book to join in. I have pre-ordered from Kindle (half price otherwise I may not have 😊) But is only available on September 22nd. So a holding place if you like.

Nope. I work as a paralegal in criminal cases. But my qualifications mean I was taught about civil law as well. As I explained in the comment you are referencing, my main training was a while ago, so yes I was rusty on libel law as I don't deal with this in my day to day work.
But hearsay being acceptable in civil cases is 101 civil law. It's incredibly basic knowledge

Of course! , im more familiar with tort and copyright law.

What court case are you talking about, where hearsay will be used?

Okay. Perhaps you will give me the kindness of accurately quoting my comments in future?

Yes sadly he missed the window for strictly.

Perhaps you would do me the kindness of not assuming that other posters are not as familiar with hearsay law sections 114 - 136
as you believe you are, you should be aware it is only admissible under certain conditions.

and I would assume that you would know that the king would not use his own courts to sue someone, just as Charles Spencer can not sue the king in his own courts , he has immunity.

One that doesn’t exist and will never happen….a long time ago, in a galaxy, far , far away!

I know the monarch is above the law.

Under the civil evidence act 1995, hearsay evidence is usually admissible.

It is in criminal cases that hearsay evidence is only admissible in specific limited circumstances. Those circumstances don't usually apply to most criminal cases.

The sections you quote are from the criminal justice act. This only relates to criminal law.

Yes , google is efficient, so if you know this why are you talking about evidence and court cases that are never going to happen?

Oh and I’m well aware of CPR 33.1 and the Civil Evidence Act 1995
however you stated that you were familiar with criminal law.

I thought I must have missed something!

Now wondering about the relevance of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 to a PP on an online forum pointing out that Richard Kay repeating what he’s been told (or repeating what he’s read in the DM) is not confirmation of Charles Spencer’s claims.

You did not differentiate between civil and criminal law and appeared to be inaccurately trying to correct me when I said hearsay evidence is usually admissible in civil cases. Libel is a civil matter.

I did not have to Google except to double check the year for the legislation. I do actually know this stuff.

The conversation came about because someone was claiming that hearsay evidence i.e. Charles Spencer telling others at the time what king Charles had said, did not matter as it was hearsay. That is wrong in a legal context.

Of course there is not going to be a court case. Apart from anything else it looks like the king did say those things, so of course he is not going to take Charles Spencer to court.

In a civil case Richard Kay's witness statement would be strong supporting evidence.

They did not claim that hearsay evidence did not matter as it was hearsay. And there is no legal context. They pointed out that Richard Kay, despite his journalist’s brain, doesn’t actually know any of this as fact. He is repeating what he has been told.

They used the words hearsay. That is what hearsay means. It is someone telling you what they have seen, heard or touched. The person being told this does not directly witness whatever was said or done.

And my point was that legally it is wrong to say that hearsay evidence does not matter. It does. You may think it is unimportant, but the civil law of the land does not agree with you.

'Im no fan of Paul Burrell but I do think he was right when he said that Charles Spencer didn’t want Diana at Althorp when she was alive but happy to have her there when she was dead and charge £10 a pop to ‘visit’ her resting place.
This is just another person making money off the dead Princess.
I expect she would be disgusted with him.'

Her brother really is a repulsive turd. Using his sisters' memory for his dreadful book, to make money to fund his 2nd divorce. Much like he makes money from having her resting place at his house. Grim.

He's very similar to his nephew, making money from her memory to fund his non working life and keep himself relevant.. Grotesque really, both of the beta male chancers.

I believe the one who doesn't have a book coming out. As they say.

But there isn’t a civil case? So what?
I expect CS’s contemporary interviews saying how nice KC3 was would also be strong evidence. But none of that means anything. The PP was not talking about evidence or litigation. They were merely saying, when discussing how Richard Kay knew, that he didn’t. He was repeating what he had been told.

Hearsay is not just a legal term, it has a meaning outside the legal context, and this is clearly its use here, given there was no mention of evidence and there is no court case. Comparison of definitions attached for you.

Wow! When you see it laid out like that it's fairly shocking! Spencer has profited indeed. Well unless he has drank it all or on divorces.

Paralegal? Are you Rachel Zane?🤪

I’ve scrolled (on phone so might have missed it) but can’t see this being shared. Meghan Markle using a swan 🦢 emoji in her As Ever posts. Could this be a non too subtle endorsement of Charles Spencer’s Diane’s book?

I had to Google who that is.

@noonames I get a legal definition if I just Google hearsay.
It irritates me people using words incorrectly like OCD for someone who just likes a tidy house.
Personally I think in a discussion about do we believe what Charles Spencer said, then the words we use matter.
It is quite clear that what Charles Spencer told Richard kay is not just gossip as you claim. As a historian Charles Spencer presumably has some understanding of the law around hearsay, and told Richard kay due to this understanding

gosh !

You could equally say - if it's true, why don't his sisters speak up in his support?

You can't have it one way and not the other.