R v Ridgeway [2021] NSWSC 1717

R v Ridgeway [2021] NSWSC 1717

The Court ruled that the deceased's statements reported in Mr Russell's statement should not be admitted because, although arguably admissible, they were second-hand hearsay that the accused could not test and their potential prejudice was too great. Ms Hayes's evidence was technically capable of admission under s 66, but it was unfair to admit it while Ms Hanson was available to give the same evidence herself, and any ruling under s 108(3) was premature unless Ms Hanson's credit was actually attacked wholesale. Paragraph [6] of Ms Hanson's 10 March 2020 statement was admissible because the alleged words of the accused were capable of being construed as an admission, were highly probative...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Murder Trial; Admissibility of Evidence Rulings / Procedural Rulings Before Commencement of Jury Trial
Outcome
The Crown was refused leave to lead the disputed second-hand hearsay from Mr Russell's statement; Ms Hayes's disputed evidence was not admitted at that stage; paragraph [6] of Ms Hanson's 10 March 2020 statement was admitted.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'second Hand Hearsay' 'prior Representations' 'credit Evidence' 'admissions' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'accident' 'self Defence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'second Hand Hearsay' 'prior Representations' 'credit Evidence' 'admissions' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'accident' 'self Defence']

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

Murder Trial; Admissibility of Evidence Rulings / Procedural Rulings Before Commencement of Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether parts of Mark Anthony Russell's police statement reporting statements by the deceased should be admitted although Mr Russell was not expected to give evidence." 'Whether Connie Hayes could give evidence of what Nikita Hanson told her by telephone shortly after the alleged stabbing under s 66 or s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether paragraph [6] of Nikita Hanson's 10 March 2020 statement, attributing a statement to the accused immediately after the alleged stabbing, should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ruled that the deceased's statements reported in Mr Russell's statement should not be admitted because, although arguably admissible, they were second-hand hearsay that the accused could not test and their potential prejudice was too great. Ms Hayes's evidence was technically capable of admission under s 66, but it was unfair to admit it while Ms Hanson was available to give the same evidence herself, and any ruling under s 108(3) was premature unless Ms Hanson's credit was actually attacked wholesale. Paragraph [6] of Ms Hanson's 10 March 2020 statement was admissible because the alleged words of the accused were capable of being construed as an admission, were highly probative...

Court Disposition

The Crown was refused leave to lead the disputed second-hand hearsay from Mr Russell's statement; Ms Hayes's disputed evidence was not admitted at that stage; paragraph [6] of Ms Hanson's 10 March 2020 statement was admitted.

Orders

  • ["The Crown is not permitted, for present purposes, to lead the second-hand hearsay in Mr Russell's statement in which the deceased is stated to have said the matters set out in [22] and [29]." "The disputed evidence of Connie Hayes is not admitted under s 66 at this stage, and any ruling under s 108(3) is deferred...