R v Green (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 1306

R v Green (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 1306

The representation was admissible under s 66 because it was relevant to the presence of Mr Green near Ms Luckwell's residence at about the time the Crown alleged she was murdered, the maker had been called to give evidence, and the representation was made within a couple of days of the asserted fact when it was fresh in the maker's mind. The alternative basis under s 108(3) was not made out because cross-examination did not expressly or impliedly suggest that Mr Allan's evidence was a fabrication or reconstruction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
The impugned representation is admitted pursuant to s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'credibility' 'admissibility of Representations' 'fabrication or Reconstruction in Cross Examination']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['hearsay' 'credibility' 'admissibility of Representations' 'fabrication or Reconstruction in Cross Examination']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the representation made by Mr Allan to Ms Cheetham and Mr Renshaw was admissible under s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether admissibility under s 66 requires the maker of the representation to give evidence of the representation when called.' 'Whether the conditions for admissibility under s 108(3) were satisfied by questions asked in cross-examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The representation was admissible under s 66 because it was relevant to the presence of Mr Green near Ms Luckwell's residence at about the time the Crown alleged she was murdered, the maker had been called to give evidence, and the representation was made within a couple of days of the asserted fact when it was fresh in the maker's mind. The alternative basis under s 108(3) was not made out because cross-examination did not expressly or impliedly suggest that Mr Allan's evidence was a fabrication or reconstruction.

Court Disposition

The impugned representation is admitted pursuant to s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['The impugned representation is admitted pursuant to s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']