R v Hawi & ors (No 14) [2011] NSWSC 1660

R v Hawi & ors (No 14) [2011] NSWSC 1660

The police officer's notes are not admissible because SP admitted making the statements identified as inconsistent, so s 43 does not require their admission. The notes are not sufficiently relevant to credibility to justify admission under s 103 or s 66, as any contradiction was minor and adequately addressed by cross-examination; to admit the notes would be unfair.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence at Trial
Outcome
Evidence ruled not admissible
Legal Topics
['credibility' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'admissibility of Police Notes' 'hearsay']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['credibility' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'admissibility of Police Notes' 'hearsay']

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 / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether police officer's notes of an accomplice witness's account are admissible as evidence of prior inconsistent statements or for the assessment of credibility" 'Whether the notes are admissible under s 43 or s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995']

Ratio Decidendi

The police officer's notes are not admissible because SP admitted making the statements identified as inconsistent, so s 43 does not require their admission. The notes are not sufficiently relevant to credibility to justify admission under s 103 or s 66, as any contradiction was minor and adequately addressed by cross-examination; to admit the notes would be unfair.

Court Disposition

Evidence ruled not admissible

Orders

  • ['Notes made by Detective McLoughlin of what SP told him on 10 July 2009 are not admissible.']