In what circumstances will the courts rely solely on the principle of circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness of a nurse?

In a footnote the authors comment that the decision in Ares v. Venner, because the nurses were available in court the day of the hearing, may be said to have turned exclusively on the principle of circumstantial guarantee of trustworthiness.

Defence Counsel focusses on the analysis of Ares v. Venner contained later in the text on page 53. His argument is that the traditional rules set out there, principally number 6, on which he relies, have not been met and that on the authority of that case, the records in this case should be rejected. Rule number 6 is said to be that the record must be made by a person who was under a duty to do the very thing recorded and recorded it. The authors say that the impact of the Ares v. Venner case on this traditional rule is that the duty to record is retained explicitly, that personal knowledge of the maker is required (thus continuing the exclusion of hearsay recordings), while the case broadens the exception to include knowledge and observation rather than just recording of a physical act and that it may include opinion, which the common law exception appears to exclude. But, if so, the suggestion is that the court clearly intended to impose a condition that the giver of the opinion be available to testify. There would be a continuation of the requirement that would appear to flow implicitly, that the person recording had no motive to misrepresent. Supra, page 53.