Which of the following is a valid excuse for the admissibility of secondary evidence?

The admissibility of secondary evidence is significantly influenced by the circumstances surrounding the original document's unavailability. One valid excuse for using secondary evidence arises when the original document has been lost or destroyed. In such cases, the law allows for secondary evidence, such as copies or oral testimony regarding the content of the document, to be introduced in court. It is crucial to demonstrate that the original was indeed lost or destroyed, as this opens the door for secondary evidence to be considered reliable in the absence of the original document.

In contrast, other scenarios provided do not inherently grant the same privilege for secondary evidence. For instance, while a public record might not require the submission of the original document for certain types of evidence, it does not specifically justify the use of secondary evidence if the original exists and is available. Similarly, if a document is easily reproducible, this does not directly relate to an excuse for allowing secondary evidence; the necessity for the original is rooted within legal principles rather than the ease of replication. Finally, the notion that all original copies are in the public domain does not excuse the absence of the original document if it is still legally necessary to present it in court. Thus, loss or destruction remains the only circumstance mentioned that validly permits the reliance on