I do not interpret the foregoing to mean that fragments of statements or conversations ought automatically to be excluded, but rather that the inquiry upon which to found an assessment of relevance and probative value versus prejudicial effect, has as a required precondition that the trier of fact must be able to understand the meaning and context of what is uttered. Otherwise to admit it into evidence has no point and relevance has not been established. Regina v. Yeomans [1995] B.C.J. No. 2390 (B.C.S.C.) at para. 9 makes it clear that fragments of conversation or an utterance may have significant probative value that outweighs potential prejudicial effect, even without more complete utterances being overheard. I turn now to the particular conversations.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.