R v Waldron (No.1) [2024] NSWDC 157

R v Waldron (No.1) [2024] NSWDC 157

Ms Brown's evidence of notes she took at the meeting, based on her own contemporaneous document and read after leave under s32, did not amount to hearsay evidence and therefore could not be excluded under s59. R v Woods was distinguishable because it concerned whether a jury warning should be given under s165, not admissibility. Alternatively, to the extent the evidence contained statements by the accused adverse to his interests, it was admissible as admissions under s81, with s82 satisfied because Ms Brown saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representations being made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Accused's Application to Exclude Evidence of a Witness During Trial on Voir Dire
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['application to Exclude Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'refreshing Memory From Notes' 'admissions' 'voir Dire']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['application to Exclude Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'refreshing Memory From Notes' 'admissions' 'voir Dire']

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

Criminal / Accused's Application to Exclude Evidence of a Witness During Trial on Voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Ms Brown's evidence of what was said at the meeting on 17 December 2014, based on her contemporaneous notes, was hearsay evidence inadmissible under s59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether evidence admitted after leave under s32 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) could be received as non-hearsay evidence or under an exception to the hearsay rule.' 'Whether, if the evidence was hearsay, statements by the accused were admissible as admissions under ss81 and 82 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Brown's evidence of notes she took at the meeting, based on her own contemporaneous document and read after leave under s32, did not amount to hearsay evidence and therefore could not be excluded under s59. R v Woods was distinguishable because it concerned whether a jury warning should be given under s165, not admissibility. Alternatively, to the extent the evidence contained statements by the accused adverse to his interests, it was admissible as admissions under s81, with s82 satisfied because Ms Brown saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representations being made.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ["The accused's application to exclude the evidence of Ms Kate Brown is refused." 'The leave granted on 1 March 2024 for Ms Brown to refer to the notes taken by her during the meeting at the offices of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia on 17 December 2014 is confirmed, and leave is granted for her to read from...