R v Droudis (No. 7) [2016] NSWSC 1274

R v Droudis (No. 7) [2016] NSWSC 1274

The second representation was admissible under s.65 Evidence Act 1995 because it was made shortly after the asserted fact occurred, in circumstances making fabrication unlikely and reliability sufficiently probable, and it also satisfied s.65(2)(d). The first representation was not admissible because the evidence was uncertain as to timing and attribution to the Accused rather than Monis, and the Court could not make favourable findings as to reliability under s.65(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Judge Alone Trial for Murder / Procedural Ruling on Voir Dire Concerning Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Under S.65(2) Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
For the purpose of s.65(2) Evidence Act 1995, the hearsay rule applies to the first representation but not the second representation arising from the evidence of Sonia Conciatore.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'unavailable Witness' 'admissibility of Representations' 'evidence Act 1995 S.65(2)']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'unavailable Witness' 'admissibility of Representations' 'evidence Act 1995 S.65(2)']

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

Judge Alone Trial for Murder / Procedural Ruling on Voir Dire Concerning Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Under S.65(2) Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether two representations conveyed through Sonia Conciatore about statements made by the deceased concerning communications with the Accused were admissible under s.65(2) Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the alleged representations were second-hand hearsay or first-hand hearsay.' 'Whether the first representation concerning the use of the word "Mummy" satisfied the reliability requirements for admission under s.65(2).' 'Whether the second representation concerning an argument about the boys living with Monis satisfied the requirements for admission under s.65(2).']

Ratio Decidendi

The second representation was admissible under s.65 Evidence Act 1995 because it was made shortly after the asserted fact occurred, in circumstances making fabrication unlikely and reliability sufficiently probable, and it also satisfied s.65(2)(d). The first representation was not admissible because the evidence was uncertain as to timing and attribution to the Accused rather than Monis, and the Court could not make favourable findings as to reliability under s.65(2).

Court Disposition

For the purpose of s.65(2) Evidence Act 1995, the hearsay rule applies to the first representation but not the second representation arising from the evidence of Sonia Conciatore.

Orders

  • ['The second representation is admitted and treated as admissible under s.65 Evidence Act 1995.' 'The first representation is not admitted for the purpose of s.65.']