R v So (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1052

R v So (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1052

The identified hearsay statements, except for paragraph 34 of Gary Weavers' statement and paragraph 8 of Sandra Weavers' statement, were admissible under s 65(2)(c) because Mr Dickie was not available and the circumstances in which the representations were made, including close or long-standing relationships with the recipients and the memorable or candid nature of the statements, made it highly probable that the representations were reliable. Most of the proposed tendency evidence was admissible because, taken at its highest and considered with the other evidence, it had significant probative value in establishing the asserted tendency that Mr Dickie disavowed long term, live-in domestic...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Procedural Rulings in Murder Trial / Voir Dire Rulings on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence and Tendency Evidence During Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Crown applications substantially granted; certain hearsay passages excluded and specified tendency evidence admitted despite absence of reasonable notice.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'unavailable Witness' 'tendency Evidence' 'late Tendency Notice' 'significant Probative Value' 'motive']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'unavailable Witness' 'tendency Evidence' 'late Tendency Notice' 'significant Probative Value' 'motive']

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 Rulings in Murder Trial / Voir Dire Rulings on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence and Tendency Evidence During Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether identified hearsay statements attributed to Robert Dickie were admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule where Mr Dickie was not available to give evidence.' 'Whether representations were made in circumstances that made it highly probable that they were reliable for the purposes of s 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the Crown should be permitted to adduce tendency evidence despite late notice.' 'Whether the proposed tendency evidence had significant probative value in establishing a tendency of Robert Dickie to disavow long term, live-in domestic relationships and engage in short term sexual encounters, including by falsely promising long-term relationships.']

Ratio Decidendi

The identified hearsay statements, except for paragraph 34 of Gary Weavers' statement and paragraph 8 of Sandra Weavers' statement, were admissible under s 65(2)(c) because Mr Dickie was not available and the circumstances in which the representations were made, including close or long-standing relationships with the recipients and the memorable or candid nature of the statements, made it highly probable that the representations were reliable. Most of the proposed tendency evidence was admissible because, taken at its highest and considered with the other evidence, it had significant probative value in establishing the asserted tendency that Mr Dickie disavowed long term, live-in domestic...

Court Disposition

Crown applications substantially granted; certain hearsay passages excluded and specified tendency evidence admitted despite absence of reasonable notice.

Orders

  • ["In respect of the application by the Crown to admit certain hearsay evidence, the identified passages of hearsay evidence in the statements of Susan Carter, Annette O'Reilly, Gary Weavers and Sandra Weavers are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule pursuant to s 65(2)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), with...