Adam v The Queen [2001] HCA 57

Adam v The Queen [2001] HCA 57

The majority held that Thaier Sako's prior inconsistent statements were relevant not only to credibility but to facts in issue regarding the accused's guilt. Leave was properly granted to cross-examine under Evidence Act s 38, and the statements were admissible for their truth pursuant to s 60, as they were relevant for a purpose other than credibility. The trial judge’s rulings were correct, and the appeal should be dismissed. Gaudron J dissented, finding the prior statements were not inherently reliable, could not be effectively tested by the defence, and leave to cross-examine should not have been granted.

Parties
Appellant: Gilbert Adam; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal, Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (majority); one dissent allowing appeal and ordering retrial
Legal Topics
Prior Inconsistent Statements, Admissibility of Evidence, Credibility Rule, Hearsay Exception, Cross Examination of Unfavourable Witness
Criminal Law Evidence Law Prior Inconsistent Statements Admissibility of Evidence Credibility Rule Hearsay Exception Cross Examination of Unfavourable Witness

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 5 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gilbert Adam

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Final Appeal, Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the trial judge err in admitting prior inconsistent statements of a prosecution witness as evidence of the truth of their contents?
  2. 2 Did the trial judge err in granting the prosecution leave to cross-examine its own witness under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)?
  3. 3 Were the prior inconsistent statements properly admitted pursuant to the statutory exceptions to the hearsay and credibility rules?

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that Thaier Sako's prior inconsistent statements were relevant not only to credibility but to facts in issue regarding the accused's guilt. Leave was properly granted to cross-examine under Evidence Act s 38, and the statements were admissible for their truth pursuant to s 60, as they were relevant for a purpose other than credibility. The trial judge’s rulings were correct, and the appeal should be dismissed. Gaudron J dissented, finding the prior statements were not inherently reliable, could not be effectively tested by the defence, and leave to cross-examine should not have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (majority); one dissent allowing appeal and ordering retrial

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed