R v Bushell; R v Tozer (No 13) [2023] NSWSC 1449

R v Bushell; R v Tozer (No 13) [2023] NSWSC 1449

Because Lincoln Hudson was to be called as a witness, s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) applied so hearsay did not bar the evidence. In the context that each accused, the deceased and a number of witnesses were involved in cooking methamphetamines, a request or possible request for someone to undertake a cook was not unfairly prejudicial, and the evidence had probative value because it joined the dots in terms of the later conversation. The evidence was therefore admissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Objection to Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
The evidence of Witness E to which objection has been taken is admissible.
Legal Topics
['probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'hearsay Exception' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'hearsay Exception' 'admissibility 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

Procedural Ruling / Objection to Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence to be adduced from Witness E/Lincoln Hudson should be admitted despite objection that it was unfairly prejudicial because it disclosed that the accused engaged in drug manufacture.' 'Whether s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) applied as an exception to the exclusion of hearsay evidence.' 'Whether any unfair prejudice under ss 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) outweighed the probative value of the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because Lincoln Hudson was to be called as a witness, s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) applied so hearsay did not bar the evidence. In the context that each accused, the deceased and a number of witnesses were involved in cooking methamphetamines, a request or possible request for someone to undertake a cook was not unfairly prejudicial, and the evidence had probative value because it joined the dots in terms of the later conversation. The evidence was therefore admissible.

Court Disposition

The evidence of Witness E to which objection has been taken is admissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence is allowed.']