Greiss v Seven Network (Operations) Limited (Evidentiary Ruling) [2023] FCA 235

Greiss v Seven Network (Operations) Limited (Evidentiary Ruling) [2023] FCA 235

The representations in the police witness statements were not admissible for their truth under s 69(2) because s 69(3)(b) applied: the statements were made after the infringement notice, were in the form of prospective witness statements, and were connected with an extant police investigation that had an obvious relationship to possible criminal proceedings. However, the representations were admitted for non-hearsay purposes and, by operation of s 60, were not excluded by the hearsay rule. The Court was not persuaded that use of the representations for all relevant purposes might be misleading or cause unfair prejudice to the respondents, particularly because the respondents’ arguments...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Evidentiary Ruling in Defamation Proceedings / During Trial, on Admissibility and Use of Representations in Police Witness Statements Tendered by the Applicant
Outcome
The Court declined to make an order under s 136; the representations in exhibits P and Q are admissible for all relevant purposes.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'business Records Exception' 'police Witness Statements' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'truth Defence']
['evidence' 'defamation'] ['hearsay' 'business Records Exception' 'police Witness Statements' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'truth Defence']

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

Evidentiary Ruling in Defamation Proceedings / During Trial, on Admissibility and Use of Representations in Police Witness Statements Tendered by the Applicant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations in NSW Police witness statements were admissible for their truth under the business records exception in s 69(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth).' 'Whether s 69(2) was excluded because the representations were made in connection with an investigation relating to a criminal proceeding under s 69(3)(b).' 'Whether, because the representations were relevant for non-hearsay purposes and admitted under s 60, the Court should make an order under s 136 limiting their use to those non-hearsay purposes.']

Ratio Decidendi

The representations in the police witness statements were not admissible for their truth under s 69(2) because s 69(3)(b) applied: the statements were made after the infringement notice, were in the form of prospective witness statements, and were connected with an extant police investigation that had an obvious relationship to possible criminal proceedings. However, the representations were admitted for non-hearsay purposes and, by operation of s 60, were not excluded by the hearsay rule. The Court was not persuaded that use of the representations for all relevant purposes might be misleading or cause unfair prejudice to the respondents, particularly because the respondents’ arguments...

Court Disposition

The Court declined to make an order under s 136; the representations in exhibits P and Q are admissible for all relevant purposes.

Orders

  • ['The evidence in exhibits P and Q may be used for any relevant purpose.']