R v Yavuz (No. 4) [2018] NSWSC 1767

R v Yavuz (No. 4) [2018] NSWSC 1767

The evidence contained in the triple-0 call was admissible because it was relevant to facts in issue and fell within the exception to the hearsay rule in s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The call was made immediately after the incident while the events were fresh in the witness's memory, and the witness was available to give evidence. There was no issue with credibility at the time of the tender. The fact that the witness had already given oral evidence of the same facts did not render the triple-0 call inadmissible, nor was its admission precluded as a mere prior consistent statement as the evidence was relevant independently of credibility considerations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Evidentiary Ruling (admissibility of Evidence)
Outcome
Triple-0 call evidence admitted
Legal Topics
['hearsay Exceptions' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'fresh in Memory' 'triple 0 Call Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay Exceptions' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'fresh in Memory' 'triple 0 Call 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

Criminal Trial / Evidentiary Ruling (admissibility of Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the triple-0 call made by a witness immediately after the alleged murder is admissible as evidence in the criminal trial' 'Whether the call is inadmissible as a prior consistent statement or falls within a hearsay exception under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence contained in the triple-0 call was admissible because it was relevant to facts in issue and fell within the exception to the hearsay rule in s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The call was made immediately after the incident while the events were fresh in the witness's memory, and the witness was available to give evidence. There was no issue with credibility at the time of the tender. The fact that the witness had already given oral evidence of the same facts did not render the triple-0 call inadmissible, nor was its admission precluded as a mere prior consistent statement as the evidence was relevant independently of credibility considerations.

Court Disposition

Triple-0 call evidence admitted

Orders

  • ['The evidence contained in the triple-0 call is admissible']