R v Hawkins (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 1496

R v Hawkins (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 1496

Leave was granted to adduce the evidence of Keira Thorby and Dillon McDougall as their accounts of the witness's prior consistent statements were relevant to rebutting suggestions of fabrication raised during cross-examination under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and no undue unfairness arose. Leave was refused for AC as his evidence was ambiguous and did not meet the threshold of importance or capacity to re-establish credibility.

Parties
Prosecutor: Rex; Accused: Jason Paul Hawkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Leave granted in part
Legal Topics
Credibility Evidence, Prior Consistent Statements, Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 108(3), Hearsay Exception, Granting of Leave to Adduce Evidence
Criminal Law Credibility Evidence Prior Consistent Statements Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 108(3) Hearsay Exception Granting of Leave to Adduce 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecutor

Jason Paul Hawkins

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to adduce prior consistent statements to re-establish a witness's credibility
  2. 2 Whether s 108(3) applies solely to re-examination of the witness whose credibility was impugned or also to other witnesses
  3. 3 Whether unfairness would arise to the accused due to inability to cross-examine on statements

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted to adduce the evidence of Keira Thorby and Dillon McDougall as their accounts of the witness's prior consistent statements were relevant to rebutting suggestions of fabrication raised during cross-examination under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and no undue unfairness arose. Leave was refused for AC as his evidence was ambiguous and did not meet the threshold of importance or capacity to re-establish credibility.

Court Disposition

Leave granted in part

Orders

  • Leave under s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) granted to adduce the evidence of Keira Thorby and Dillon McDougall.
  • Leave refused in respect of the evidence of AC.