R v Hawkins (No 9) [2020] NSWSC 1930

R v Hawkins (No 9) [2020] NSWSC 1930

None of the previous statements sought to be led qualify as prior consistent statements, as they do not materially coincide with the specific evidence given at trial regarding physical interaction between Ms Lethbridge and Mr Denniss before the shooting. Consequently, leave to adduce the evidence under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Leave to adduce evidence of prior consistent statements refused
Legal Topics
['credibility Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'section 108 Evidence Act' 'self Defence' 'murder Charge']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['credibility Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'section 108 Evidence Act' 'self Defence' 'murder Charge']

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 / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted pursuant to s 108 of the Evidence Act to adduce evidence of prior consistent statements by a Crown witness' 'Whether the statements sought to be tendered qualify as prior consistent statements within the meaning of the Evidence Act']

Ratio Decidendi

None of the previous statements sought to be led qualify as prior consistent statements, as they do not materially coincide with the specific evidence given at trial regarding physical interaction between Ms Lethbridge and Mr Denniss before the shooting. Consequently, leave to adduce the evidence under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to adduce evidence of prior consistent statements refused

Orders

  • ['Leave pursuant to s 108 of the Evidence Act to adduce evidence of prior statements of Ms Lethbridge on the basis that they are prior consistent statements is refused.']