R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75

R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75

Representations made by the deceased shortly after or at the time of asserted facts, such as to Amanpreet and Sukhvinder Singh following incidents of alleged physical abuse and in the days preceding her death, were admissible under s 65(2)(b), as the contemporaneity requirement and sufficient reliability were met. Representations falling within s 66A about her intentions and state of mind immediately preceding death were also admissible. All other hearsay representations, made to family or friends not shortly after the events, were not admissible under s 65(2)(c) as the circumstances did not make it highly probable they were reliable. The test in s 65(2)(c) was applied strictly in...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire/admissibility Ruling
Outcome
Rulings on admissibility of hearsay evidence: some representations admitted, others excluded; see [213]-[218] for orders.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'exceptions to Hearsay Rule' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'contemporaneous Representations' 'relationship Evidence' 'procedural Rulings']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['hearsay' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'exceptions to Hearsay Rule' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'contemporaneous Representations' 'relationship Evidence' 'procedural Rulings']

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 / Pre Trial Voir Dire/admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether various hearsay representations by the deceased to family and friends during her marriage are admissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 65(2)(b), 65(2)(c), or 66A.' 'Whether the circumstances in which each representation was made satisfy the reliability or fabrication tests required by the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

Representations made by the deceased shortly after or at the time of asserted facts, such as to Amanpreet and Sukhvinder Singh following incidents of alleged physical abuse and in the days preceding her death, were admissible under s 65(2)(b), as the contemporaneity requirement and sufficient reliability were met. Representations falling within s 66A about her intentions and state of mind immediately preceding death were also admissible. All other hearsay representations, made to family or friends not shortly after the events, were not admissible under s 65(2)(c) as the circumstances did not make it highly probable they were reliable. The test in s 65(2)(c) was applied strictly in...

Court Disposition

Rulings on admissibility of hearsay evidence: some representations admitted, others excluded; see [213]-[218] for orders.

Orders

  • ['Representations about fights over money: excluded under s 65(2)(c), high bar not met (see [213]).' 'Representations about physical abuse: evidence of incident where deceased stayed with Amanpreet and Sukhvinder is admissible under s 65(2)(b); rest excluded under s 65(2)(c) (see [214]).' "Representations about...