R v Droudis (No. 12) [2016] NSWSC 1330

R v Droudis (No. 12) [2016] NSWSC 1330

Sergeant Buchardt was unavailable for the purpose of s.65 Evidence Act 1995. The Crown's tender concerned first-hand hearsay because it sought to prove that Sergeant Buchardt heard Mr Aspros say particular words. The Eagle.i Investigator's Note, made about one month after the event, together with the circumstances and corroborating notebook entry and evidence of Senior Constable Oxley, made fabrication unlikely and made the representation highly probably reliable. The requirements of s.65(2)(b) and s.65(2)(c) were satisfied, so the hearsay rule did not apply and MFIs 8 and 9 were admitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Judge Alone Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Crown Tender of Statement and Investigator's Note of Unavailable Police Officer
Outcome
MFIs 8 and 9 admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'unavailable Witness' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'evidence Act 1995 S.65(2)' 'admission of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'unavailable Witness' 'first Hand Hearsay' 'evidence Act 1995 S.65(2)' 'admission of 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

Judge Alone Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Crown Tender of Statement and Investigator's Note of Unavailable Police Officer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown could tender the statement and Eagle.i Investigator's Note of Sergeant Phillip Buchardt, an unavailable police witness." 'Whether the tendered representation constituted first-hand hearsay.' 'Whether the requirements of s.65(2)(b) or s.65(2)(c) Evidence Act 1995 were satisfied so that the hearsay rule would not apply.']

Ratio Decidendi

Sergeant Buchardt was unavailable for the purpose of s.65 Evidence Act 1995. The Crown's tender concerned first-hand hearsay because it sought to prove that Sergeant Buchardt heard Mr Aspros say particular words. The Eagle.i Investigator's Note, made about one month after the event, together with the circumstances and corroborating notebook entry and evidence of Senior Constable Oxley, made fabrication unlikely and made the representation highly probably reliable. The requirements of s.65(2)(b) and s.65(2)(c) were satisfied, so the hearsay rule did not apply and MFIs 8 and 9 were admitted.

Court Disposition

MFIs 8 and 9 admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • ['Admit into evidence MFIs 8 and 9.']