R v Tabbah; R v Tiriaki (No 1) [2014] NSWSC 564
Mrs Hedges' proposed evidence about the Facebook threat was inadmissible because she had not seen or otherwise perceived the Facebook threat and could only repeat what her daughter told her. The evidence was second-hand hearsay. Section 66 did not apply because it is confined to first-hand hearsay within s 62, and the person who made the Facebook representation was not to be called.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 09 April 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Evidence
- Outcome
- Evidence not admissible.
- Legal Topics
- ['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 66' 'facebook Threat']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether Mrs Hedges could give evidence about a threat made against Mathew Hedges on Facebook when she had not seen the threat herself but had been told about it by her daughter.' "Whether the hearsay exception in s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) applied to Mrs Hedges' evidence about the Facebook threat."]
Ratio Decidendi
Mrs Hedges' proposed evidence about the Facebook threat was inadmissible because she had not seen or otherwise perceived the Facebook threat and could only repeat what her daughter told her. The evidence was second-hand hearsay. Section 66 did not apply because it is confined to first-hand hearsay within s 62, and the person who made the Facebook representation was not to be called.
Court Disposition
Evidence not admissible.
Orders
- ['Evidence not admissible.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment