R v Tangi (No 10) [2020] NSWSC 545

R v Tangi (No 10) [2020] NSWSC 545

The representations were admissible because s 66(2) applied and s 66(3) did not. The purpose of the witnesses in making the informal comments to police was not to indicate the evidence they would be able to give in proceedings, but was for the opposite purpose, to assist the investigation, and in some cases to exculpate themselves. The evidence was highly probative, and its probative value was not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice under s 137, nor substantially outweighed for the purposes of s 135.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Previous Extra Curial Representations During Trial
Outcome
Objection to evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'previous Representations' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 66' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'previous Representations' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 66' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discretionary Exclusion of 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Previous Extra Curial Representations During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether previous extra-curial representations made by available witnesses to police were admissible under s 66(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether s 66(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) prevented the prosecutor from adducing the representations because they were made for the purpose of indicating the evidence the witnesses would be able to give in proceedings.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 137 or s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The representations were admissible because s 66(2) applied and s 66(3) did not. The purpose of the witnesses in making the informal comments to police was not to indicate the evidence they would be able to give in proceedings, but was for the opposite purpose, to assist the investigation, and in some cases to exculpate themselves. The evidence was highly probative, and its probative value was not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice under s 137, nor substantially outweighed for the purposes of s 135.

Court Disposition

Objection to evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the representations was ruled admissible.']