R v Mackie (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 456

R v Mackie (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 456

The two representations of Ms Cave are inadmissible as the circumstances of their making are not sufficiently clear to support reliability or rule out fabrication under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 65(2)(b) or (c), and, if admissible, would be excluded under s 137 due to risk of unfair prejudice outweighing probative value.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Two representations of Ms Cave ruled inadmissible
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'unavailability of Witness' 'exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['hearsay' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'unavailability of Witness' 'exclusion of Prejudicial 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 / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the hearsay representations by the deceased are admissible under exceptions in s 65 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether the representations were made in circumstances that make them highly probable to be reliable or unlikely to be fabricated' 'Whether the representations should be excluded under s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The two representations of Ms Cave are inadmissible as the circumstances of their making are not sufficiently clear to support reliability or rule out fabrication under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 65(2)(b) or (c), and, if admissible, would be excluded under s 137 due to risk of unfair prejudice outweighing probative value.

Court Disposition

Two representations of Ms Cave ruled inadmissible

Orders

  • ['The two representations of Ms Cave in issue are inadmissible.']