R v Doe [2006] NSWDC 193

R v Doe [2006] NSWDC 193

A statement is not admissible as an admission under s 81 of the Evidence Act unless the person who made the statement is identified by independent evidence as the party to the proceeding; otherwise, it remains hearsay under s 59.

Parties
Prosecution: Crown; Accused: Aisson Doe
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Evidence ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Identification, Hearsay, Admissions
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Identification Hearsay Admissions

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Prosecution

Aisson Doe

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a statement made by 'Emos' to Mr Mullima is admissible as evidence against the accused under the Evidence Act 1995.

Ratio Decidendi

A statement is not admissible as an admission under s 81 of the Evidence Act unless the person who made the statement is identified by independent evidence as the party to the proceeding; otherwise, it remains hearsay under s 59.

Court Disposition

Evidence ruled inadmissible