Who hasn't heard about the hearsay rule? What's that you say? You haven't heard of it? Well, it's this:

The hearsay rule--exclusion of hearsay evidence

             (1)  Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation.

             (2)  Such a fact is in this Part referred to as an asserted fact .

          (2A)  For the purposes of determining under subsection (1) whether it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert a particular fact by the representation, the court may have regard to the circumstances in which the representation was made.

Note:          Subsection (2A) was inserted as a response to the decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in R. v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359.

             (3)  Subsection (1) does not apply to evidence of a representation contained in a certificate or other document given or made under regulations made under an Act other than this Act to the extent to which the regulations provide that the certificate or other document has evidentiary effect.

What in the actual f**k does that actually say? What does that actually mean? It's actually really straight forward once you try and break it down.  The reason why hearsay can be so tricky is because there are so many exceptions to it.  I'll discuss the exceptions another time, let's work on the basics first.

What's With The... Hearsay Rule. Hearsay- it only seems complicated, until you start breaking it down! It's also complicated because there are a lot of exceptions to the rule, don't worry, I'll cover those in another post. Let's start with the basics.