R v Meakin (No. 1) [2016] NSWSC 1006

R v Meakin (No. 1) [2016] NSWSC 1006

Because it was not disputed that the accused was driving the vehicle that struck and killed the deceased, the implied admission in the statement 'I don't know what I hit' was not adverse to his interests and was not an admission under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). However, the statement was admissible under s 66(2) because the accused was to be called to give evidence and the representation was made later on the same day as the incident, when the asserted facts were fresh in his memory. The later evidence could include Ms Meredith's conversation with the accused and her observations that he went white and had a blank look, but not her opinion that he was shocked or that he lacked...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Evidentiary Ruling on Leave to the Accused to Adduce Evidence From a Crown Witness During Trial
Outcome
Leave granted in part for the accused to adduce specified evidence from Ms Meredith; lay opinion evidence that the accused was shocked was rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay' 'admissions' 'fresh in the Memory Exception' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'relevance']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay' 'admissions' 'fresh in the Memory Exception' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'relevance']

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 Proceeding / Evidentiary Ruling on Leave to the Accused to Adduce Evidence From a Crown Witness During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused could adduce evidence from Ms Meredith of a conversation on the day of the charged offences containing an implied admission and exculpatory material.' "Whether the implied admission in the accused's statement was an admission within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether the evidence of the accused's previous representation was admissible under s 66(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether Ms Meredith could give lay opinion evidence that the accused was shocked, or that he did not know the deceased was the man with whom he had had the altercation, after she conveyed information to him.' 'Whether Ms Meredith could give evidence of her observations that the accused went white and had a blank look on his face.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because it was not disputed that the accused was driving the vehicle that struck and killed the deceased, the implied admission in the statement 'I don't know what I hit' was not adverse to his interests and was not an admission under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). However, the statement was admissible under s 66(2) because the accused was to be called to give evidence and the representation was made later on the same day as the incident, when the asserted facts were fresh in his memory. The later evidence could include Ms Meredith's conversation with the accused and her observations that he went white and had a blank look, but not her opinion that he was shocked or that he lacked...

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part for the accused to adduce specified evidence from Ms Meredith; lay opinion evidence that the accused was shocked was rejected.

Orders

  • ['Leave to the accused to adduce the evidence referred to in paragraphs [4] and [15] of the judgment.' 'The defence was permitted to adduce evidence from Ms Meredith of the conversation referred to in [15] and of her observations of the accused subsequently, but not her statement that he was shocked.']