R v Jarratt [2019] NSWDC 300

R v Jarratt [2019] NSWDC 300

The complainant's representation to Mr Grainger was made within about three to four years of the alleged rape, before the complainant and Mr Grainger moved to Queensland. Considering the nature of the alleged sexual assault, the complainant's relative youth, and the period of time involved, the asserted fact was fresh in the complainant's memory for the purposes of s 66. The hearsay rule therefore did not apply, and the evidence was admissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence During the Crown Case
Outcome
Crown allowed to adduce hearsay evidence
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'complaint Evidence' 'exception to Hearsay Rule' 'fresh in the Memory' 'sexual Assault Allegation']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'complaint Evidence' 'exception to Hearsay Rule' 'fresh in the Memory' 'sexual Assault Allegation']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence During the Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown could adduce Mr Peter Grainger's evidence of the complainant's prior representation as an exception to the hearsay rule under s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether, when the representation was made, the occurrence of the asserted fact was fresh in the memory of the complainant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant's representation to Mr Grainger was made within about three to four years of the alleged rape, before the complainant and Mr Grainger moved to Queensland. Considering the nature of the alleged sexual assault, the complainant's relative youth, and the period of time involved, the asserted fact was fresh in the complainant's memory for the purposes of s 66. The hearsay rule therefore did not apply, and the evidence was admissible.

Court Disposition

Crown allowed to adduce hearsay evidence

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Mr Grainger was ruled admissible.' 'The Crown could call Mr Grainger.']