Regina v Dean Anthony Privett and Michael Privett [1999] NSWSC 1075

Regina v Dean Anthony Privett and Michael Privett [1999] NSWSC 1075

Ms Baldwin's evidence of Dr Rowland's statement was not admissible because it was not shown to be first-hand hearsay within s62 of the Evidence Act 1995. Nothing in the conversation identified the source of Dr Rowland's belief that his life was in danger because two brothers were after him, and it might have been based on a previous representation by another person. For the same reason, the Court could not reach an affirmative conclusion that the information or belief had a reliable foundation for s65(2)(c).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Murder Trial / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Tendered by the Crown
Outcome
Evidence rejected
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'admissibility of Motive Evidence' 'unavailable Maker of Previous Representation' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'admissibility of Motive Evidence' 'unavailable Maker of Previous Representation' 'unfair Prejudice']

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 Proceedings; Murder Trial / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Tendered by the Crown

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of statements made by Dr Peter Rowland to Jeanette Mary Baldwin was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule where Dr Rowland was not available to give evidence.' "Whether Dr Rowland's statement was first-hand hearsay within the meaning of s62 of the Evidence Act 1995." "Whether the circumstances made it highly probable that Dr Rowland's representation was reliable under s65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether related evidence from Alena Privett and evidence about Quamby House was admissible as evidence of motive.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Baldwin's evidence of Dr Rowland's statement was not admissible because it was not shown to be first-hand hearsay within s62 of the Evidence Act 1995. Nothing in the conversation identified the source of Dr Rowland's belief that his life was in danger because two brothers were after him, and it might have been based on a previous representation by another person. For the same reason, the Court could not reach an affirmative conclusion that the information or belief had a reliable foundation for s65(2)(c).

Court Disposition

Evidence rejected

Orders

  • ["Tender of Ms Baldwin's evidence rejected." "The Crown conceded that, in those circumstances, Alena Privett's evidence was not relevant and would not be pressed." 'Ruling on admissibility of the Quamby House evidence deferred until a later stage.']