英国法中司法认定作为证据的可采性分析-兼与美国证据法作比较

司法认定所依据的事实在随后发生的诉讼中有时会成为案件的争点问题，而将司法认定作为证据来证明争议的事实是否具有可采性是一个复杂的问题：要对这一问题作出规定，不仅需要考虑不同类型诉讼的审判方式、证明标准，还要考虑公正、程序滥用等公共政策。英国普通法实践最先通过Hollington案在这一问题上表明了立场，然而随着质疑的产生以及英国法对公正性日益重视，法律改革委员会和刑事法律修订委员会渐渐抛弃了普通法所确立的Hollington规则，对包括先前定罪在内的司法认定作为证明其所依据的事实之证据是否可采作出了具体细致的规定。在同为英美法系的美国，因普通法实践及政策考量等方面的差异，在这一问题上，《美国联邦证据规则》的规定与英国证据法有所不同。

The analysis on admissibility of judicial ifndings used as evidence in british law--in comparison with U.S. evidence law

The facts upon which the judicial ifndings are based could be facts in issue in the following litigation, raising a complicated problem as to the admissibility of those ifndings used as evidence to support the facts in issue. To solve this problem, not only trial modes and standard of proof of different types of litigation but also public policies like judicial justice and abuse of proceedings should be taken into consideration. English Common Law shows its attitude towards this issue firstly in the case of Hollington. However, along with more and more questions and the increasing importance of justice in English Law, the Law Reform Committee and the Criminal Law Revision Committee abandoned the Hollington rule established by common law gradually, setting up explicit rules regarding the admissibility of judicial ifndings including previous convictions. Due to different judicial practice and public policy consideration, the stipulation of U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence with respect to this issue is different from the British Evidence Law.