Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 1) [2020] FCA 1670

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v The Country Care Group Pty Ltd (Ruling No 1) [2020] FCA 1670

There is no necessity to give evidence of conversations in direct speech. Evidence of the substance or effect of the actual words spoken is permissible where a precise verbatim account is not possible, with any weaknesses going to probative value and cross-examination. The use of "words to the following effect" or "words to the effect" in the witness statements did not create unfair prejudice warranting exclusion, so the objection was rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Federal Crime and Related Proceedings; Ruling on Objection to Evidence in Prosecution for Alleged Contravention of Criminal Cartel Offence Provisions / Ruling on Evidence Before Trial
Outcome
Objection rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Conversation Evidence' 'direct Speech and Indirect Speech Evidence' 'evidence of Substance or Effect of Words Spoken' 'unfair Prejudice' 'criminal Cartel Offence Provisions']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'federal Crime and Related Proceedings'] ['admissibility of Conversation Evidence' 'direct Speech and Indirect Speech Evidence' 'evidence of Substance or Effect of Words Spoken' 'unfair Prejudice' 'criminal Cartel Offence Provisions']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Federal Crime and Related Proceedings; Ruling on Objection to Evidence in Prosecution for Alleged Contravention of Criminal Cartel Offence Provisions / Ruling on Evidence Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether witness evidence of conversations prefaced with "words to the following effect" or "words to the effect" is inadmissible because it is not a verbatim account in direct speech.' 'Whether adducing evidence of the substance or effect of conversations would cause unfair prejudice to the accused.' "Whether evidence of Mr Hogan's words and the manner in which they were said could be relied upon for issues of intent, knowledge, belief and motivation."]

Ratio Decidendi

There is no necessity to give evidence of conversations in direct speech. Evidence of the substance or effect of the actual words spoken is permissible where a precise verbatim account is not possible, with any weaknesses going to probative value and cross-examination. The use of "words to the following effect" or "words to the effect" in the witness statements did not create unfair prejudice warranting exclusion, so the objection was rejected.

Court Disposition

Objection rejected.

Orders

  • ['The objection to evidence of conversations being adduced by reference to the substance or effect of what was said is rejected.']