R v Hunter (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1806

R v Hunter (No. 2) [2013] NSWSC 1806

The Court held that, considering all circumstances of Wade Hunter's statement of 2 September 2011—including custodial status, motivation for bail, agitation, prior inconsistent statements, and corroborative discovery of weapons—it is likely the representations are reliable and satisfy admissibility under s.65(2)(d) Evidence Act 1995. The potential unfair prejudice does not outweigh the substantial probative value of the evidence, and proper jury directions will mitigate risks, therefore the evidence is admissible and not excluded under s.137 Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Objection to tendering the statement overruled; evidence admitted; Accused's Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'evidence' 'hearsay Exception' 'witness Unavailable' 'admissibility' 'reliability' 'pretrial Exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['murder' 'evidence' 'hearsay Exception' 'witness Unavailable' 'admissibility' 'reliability' 'pretrial Exclusion 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

Criminal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether previous representations in the witness statement of Wade Hunter (deceased) are admissible under s.65(2) Evidence Act 1995 as an exception to the hearsay rule' "Whether the circumstances in which Wade Hunter's statement was made render it likely that the representations are reliable" 'Whether the evidence ought to be excluded under s.137 Evidence Act 1995 due to unfair prejudice']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, considering all circumstances of Wade Hunter's statement of 2 September 2011—including custodial status, motivation for bail, agitation, prior inconsistent statements, and corroborative discovery of weapons—it is likely the representations are reliable and satisfy admissibility under s.65(2)(d) Evidence Act 1995. The potential unfair prejudice does not outweigh the substantial probative value of the evidence, and proper jury directions will mitigate risks, therefore the evidence is admissible and not excluded under s.137 Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Objection to tendering the statement overruled; evidence admitted; Accused's Notice of Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Objection by the Accused to the tender by the Crown of the contents of the statement of Wade Hunter dated 2 September 2011 is overruled.' 'Representations identified by the Crown in the statement of Wade Hunter dated 2 September 2011 satisfy the requirements of s.65(1) and (2) Evidence Act 1995.' "Accused's Notice...