From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

[1986] AC 41. B was convicted of murder. One of the issues that he sought to use in his defence -- that another person (M) had expressed knowledge of the murder before it was revealed to the public -- was held to be inadmissible (see admissibility of evidence). M was not called to give evidence, so at the trial it was held that if evidence of M's statement were adduced by D, it would be Hearsay. The House of lords accepted that, as what was at issue was M's state of mind, not the facts stated by M, this evidence might escape the hearsay rule. However, the House went on to say, rather controversially, that the evidence should still not have been admitted, as it was irrelevant (see relevant evidence for a discussion).