R v Ali ALKAN [2011] NSWDC 107

R v Ali ALKAN [2011] NSWDC 107

The hearsay rule does not apply to the complainant's triple-0 call and immediate statements to police, nor to the later recognition evidence, as they were made in circumstances unlikely to involve fabrication or related to present recognition, but does apply to the complainant's formal statement made several days after the event, which does not meet reliability requirements for s 65(2)(c).

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Ali Alkan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Admissibility Ruling (voir Dire)
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay, Evidence Act 1995 S 65(2), Reliability and Fabrication of Representations, Identification and Recognition Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence Act 1995 S 65(2) Reliability and Fabrication of Representations Identification and Recognition 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ali Alkan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Admissibility Ruling (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay rule excludes evidence of deceased complainant's statements under s 65(2) Evidence Act 1995
  2. 2 Whether the circumstances of each representation satisfy s 65(2)(b) or s 65(2)(c)
  3. 3 Distinction between fabrication and unreliability for admissibility

Ratio Decidendi

The hearsay rule does not apply to the complainant's triple-0 call and immediate statements to police, nor to the later recognition evidence, as they were made in circumstances unlikely to involve fabrication or related to present recognition, but does apply to the complainant's formal statement made several days after the event, which does not meet reliability requirements for s 65(2)(c).