R v Green (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 855

R v Green (No 3) [2021] NSWSC 855

The court held that the objective circumstances—that the representations were made by Ms Luckwell to an official in the context of a complaint to her social housing provider, and that the accuracy of her complaint would be looked into—made it highly probable that representations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) were reliable and thus admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. Representation (e) was admitted as relevant context, while representation (g), being a lay opinion and not a statement of asserted fact, was not admissible.

Parties
Crown: Regina (Crown); Accused: Jesse Leigh Green
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Prior to Trial
Outcome
Representations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule; representation (e) is relevant as context and admitted; representation (g) is inadmissible.
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Admissibility of Hearsay, Exceptions to Hearsay Rule, First Hand Hearsay Exception, Contemporaneous Representations, Criminal Proceedings
Evidence Hearsay Admissibility of Hearsay Exceptions to Hearsay Rule First Hand Hearsay Exception Contemporaneous Representations Criminal Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Crown

Jesse Leigh Green

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay representations contained in Ms Lindquist-Ford’s statement are admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule in the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether circumstances make it highly probable that the representations are reliable for the purposes of s 65(2)(c)
  3. 3 Whether representation (f) is admissible under s 66A as evidence of contemporaneous state of mind

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the objective circumstances—that the representations were made by Ms Luckwell to an official in the context of a complaint to her social housing provider, and that the accuracy of her complaint would be looked into—made it highly probable that representations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) were reliable and thus admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. Representation (e) was admitted as relevant context, while representation (g), being a lay opinion and not a statement of asserted fact, was not admissible.

Court Disposition

Representations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule; representation (e) is relevant as context and admitted; representation (g) is inadmissible.

Orders

  • Representations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (f) admitted as evidence under exceptions to the hearsay rule.
  • Representation (e) admitted as context.