Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v The KingCitation:[2024] HCA 30Before:Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Beech-Jones JJDate:14 Aug 2024Case Number:M23/2024Read more

Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v The KingCitation:[2024] HCA 30Before:Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Beech-Jones JJDate:14 Aug 2024Case Number:M23/2024Read more

The Court held that the trial judge correctly admitted the hearsay evidence under s 65 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and properly exercised discretion under s 137 in refusing to exclude the evidence. The Court of Appeal was required to apply the House v The King standard in reviewing the discretionary decision, not a correctness standard.

Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay, Judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence, Standard of Appellate Review
Evidence Law Criminal Law Admissibility of Hearsay Judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence Standard of Appellate Review

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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge correctly admitted hearsay evidence under s 65 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic)
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge properly exercised discretion under s 137 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) to refuse exclusion of the evidence
  3. 3 What standard of appellate review applies to the trial judge's discretionary decision under s 137

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the trial judge correctly admitted the hearsay evidence under s 65 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) and properly exercised discretion under s 137 in refusing to exclude the evidence. The Court of Appeal was required to apply the House v The King standard in reviewing the discretionary decision, not a correctness standard.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The orders of the trial judge are affirmed.