Indigenous storytelling and admissibility in common law courts: Developing the protocols for the reception theory of evidence

IF 0.7 2区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Zia Akhtar
{"title":"Indigenous storytelling and admissibility in common law courts: Developing the protocols for the reception theory of evidence","authors":"Zia Akhtar","doi":"10.1177/13657127231155922","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The claims for the restitution of legal estate by the Indigenous peoples are often without the benefit of a written agreement when they have to prove a spatial and temporal connection with ancestral lands. The witness testimony from a storyteller who is keeper of the historical records is in the absence of documentary evidence and the court has to be convinced of the probative value of the evidence before the oral testimony is admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. This presents immense obstacles to Indigenous litigants, who are governed by customary laws and whose narratives regarding the claims on land are conveyed intergenerationally. The court structures based on common law exclude such evidence as hearsay, which has prevented claims on land in North America, and in Norway, which has a Eurocentric court structure. There is a need for a framework in the procedural codes of the common law courts and by extension of all courts where Indigenous people own lands or exercise rights over them to formalise the reception theory of evidence. This will contextualise the terminologies, expressions and idioms that are included in Indigenous story testimony and their authenticity can be framed in protocols which courts could resource before ruling whether the narrative testimony is admissible.","PeriodicalId":54168,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","volume":"27 1","pages":"143 - 166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Evidence & Proof","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13657127231155922","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The claims for the restitution of legal estate by the Indigenous peoples are often without the benefit of a written agreement when they have to prove a spatial and temporal connection with ancestral lands. The witness testimony from a storyteller who is keeper of the historical records is in the absence of documentary evidence and the court has to be convinced of the probative value of the evidence before the oral testimony is admissible as an exception to the rule against hearsay. This presents immense obstacles to Indigenous litigants, who are governed by customary laws and whose narratives regarding the claims on land are conveyed intergenerationally. The court structures based on common law exclude such evidence as hearsay, which has prevented claims on land in North America, and in Norway, which has a Eurocentric court structure. There is a need for a framework in the procedural codes of the common law courts and by extension of all courts where Indigenous people own lands or exercise rights over them to formalise the reception theory of evidence. This will contextualise the terminologies, expressions and idioms that are included in Indigenous story testimony and their authenticity can be framed in protocols which courts could resource before ruling whether the narrative testimony is admissible.
土著故事讲述和普通法法院的可采性:制定证据接收理论的协议
土著人民要求归还合法财产往往没有书面协议,因为他们必须证明与祖先土地在空间和时间上的联系。作为历史记录保管人的说书人的证人证词没有书面证据,法庭必须确信证据的证明价值,才能将口头证词作为反对道听途说规则的例外。这给土著诉讼当事人带来了巨大的障碍,他们受习惯法管辖,关于土地权利要求的叙述是代际传达的。基于普通法的法院结构排除了道听途说和挪威等证据,前者阻止了北美和挪威对土地的索赔,后者的法院结构以欧洲为中心。需要在普通法法院的程序法典中建立一个框架,并通过扩大土著人拥有土地或对其行使权利的所有法院,使证据接收理论正式化。这将把土著故事证词中包含的术语、表达方式和习语置于上下文中,并且它们的真实性可以在协议中确定,法院可以在裁定叙述性证词是否可接受之前参考这些协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
20.00%
发文量
15
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信