R v Dillon (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1537

R v Dillon (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1537

The transcript of Mr Obeid's committal evidence is inadmissible under s 65(3) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because the representations were second-hand hearsay and not within the exception, and even if admissible, they would be excluded under s 135 due to unreliability and risk of misleading or confusing the jury.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina (Crown); Accused: Joshua Dillon
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence, Witness Unavailability, Exceptions to Hearsay Rule, Probative Value Vs Misleading Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Witness Unavailability Exceptions to Hearsay Rule Probative Value Vs Misleading Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecutor

Joshua Dillon

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Obeid is unavailable to give evidence under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Clause 4(1)(c)
  2. 2 Admissibility of transcript evidence under s 65(3) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether evidence tendered is firsthand or second-hand hearsay

Ratio Decidendi

The transcript of Mr Obeid's committal evidence is inadmissible under s 65(3) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because the representations were second-hand hearsay and not within the exception, and even if admissible, they would be excluded under s 135 due to unreliability and risk of misleading or confusing the jury.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded

Orders

  • The evidence of Mr Obeid as recorded in the transcript of the committal proceedings on 14 December 2017 received on the voir dire as exhibit M is not admissible.