15c59c34_nistry_of_Justice__New_Zealand__0
[adversarial systems] Evidence which is prejudicial or of little probative value, is more likely to be withheld from juries (who don’t have training on the weight that should be given to certain evidence). However, hearsay evidence is more readily allowable if it is reliable. A significant category of inadmissible evidence is ‘hearsay’ evidence (with numerous exceptions). In New Zealand, a ‘hearsay statement’ is defined in the Evidence Act 2006 as “a statement that was made by a person other than a witness and is offered in evidence at the proceedings to prove the truth of its contents”. At the heart of the hearsay rule is the idea that, if the court is to discover the truth, it is essential that parties have the opportunity to verify the information provided by the witnesses, which is difficult to do if the court receives evidence in writing or via a third party (and are therefore unable to cross-examine the person). [inquisitorial systems] The rules around admissibility of evidence are significantly more lenient. The absence of juries in many cases alleviates the need for many formal rules of evidence. More evidence is likely to be admitted, regardless of its reliability or prejudicial effect. Evidence is admitted if the Judge decides it is relevant. In many inquisitorial systems, there is no hearsay rule (eg, France, Belgium and Germany). It is up to the Judge to decide the value of such testimony. [0] 
Rules of evidence
B i n d i n g f o r c e o f c a s e l a w
I n v e s t i g a t i o n
E x a m i n i n g p h a s e
T h e t r i a l
R o l e o f t h e t r i a l J u d g e a n d c o u n s e l
U s e o f j u r i e s
R u l e s o f e v i d e n c e
R i g h t s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t
R o l e o f t h e v i c t i m
O r g a n i s a t i o n o f t h e c o u r t s
Appendix B: a comparison of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems — Ministry of Justice, New Zealand
0