R v Kuzmanovic [2005] NSWSC 771

R v Kuzmanovic [2005] NSWSC 771

The statement was admissible under s 65(2)(b) because Ms Valjar's representations were made shortly after the asserted facts in circumstances where the conversations were likely to remain fresh in her mind, and there was no reason or incentive for fabrication during the relatively short period between the events of 24 January 1985 and the police statement on 7 February 1985. The statement was not admissible under s 65(2)(c) because the circumstances did not make reliability highly probable, but it should not be excluded on discretionary grounds because its potential probative value was high and any prejudice to the accused was substantially outweighed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence in the Absence of the Jury
Outcome
The contents of the statement of Vera Valjar are admissible.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'previous Representation by Unavailable Witness' 'admissibility of Deceased Witness Statement' 'evidence Act 1995 S 65(2)(b)' 'evidence Act 1995 S 65(2)(c)' 'discretionary Exclusion']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['hearsay' 'previous Representation by Unavailable Witness' 'admissibility of Deceased Witness Statement' 'evidence Act 1995 S 65(2)(b)' 'evidence Act 1995 S 65(2)(c)' 'discretionary Exclusion']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence in the Absence of the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the contents of Vera Valjar's police statement about what the deceased told her on 24 January 1985 were admissible under Evidence Act 1995 s 65(2)(b)." 'Whether the statement was admissible under Evidence Act 1995 s 65(2)(c).' "Whether the representation should be excluded from the jury's consideration on discretionary grounds."]

Ratio Decidendi

The statement was admissible under s 65(2)(b) because Ms Valjar's representations were made shortly after the asserted facts in circumstances where the conversations were likely to remain fresh in her mind, and there was no reason or incentive for fabrication during the relatively short period between the events of 24 January 1985 and the police statement on 7 February 1985. The statement was not admissible under s 65(2)(c) because the circumstances did not make reliability highly probable, but it should not be excluded on discretionary grounds because its potential probative value was high and any prejudice to the accused was substantially outweighed.

Court Disposition

The contents of the statement of Vera Valjar are admissible.

Orders

  • ['The contents of the statement of Vera Valjar are admissible.']