Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60

Lee v The Queen [1998] HCA 60

Section 60 operated only on Mr Calin's representations to police that were admissible for the purpose of showing a prior inconsistent statement and affecting his credibility. It did not make the appellant's alleged representations to Mr Calin, as reported second hand by Mr Calin, admissible as proof of the truth of the alleged confession. Because the trial judge allowed the jury to treat those prior statements as evidence that the appellant had confessed, the evidence was wrongly received in a way that may have deprived the appellant of a real chance of acquittal, so the proviso should not be applied.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia by Special Leave Against the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales Dismissing an Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.
Legal Topics
['hearsay Rule' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'admissions and Confessions' 'section 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 Nsw' 'proviso Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Nsw']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['hearsay Rule' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'admissions and Confessions' 'section 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 Nsw' 'proviso Under the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 Nsw']

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 Appeal / Appeal to the High Court of Australia by Special Leave Against the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales Dismissing an Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 NSW permitted an out of court statement that was itself a report of what someone else said to be used as proof of the truth of what was reportedly said.' "Whether evidence of Mr Calin's prior statements reporting the appellant's alleged confession was admissible as evidence that the appellant committed the offence." 'Whether the proviso to s 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 NSW should be applied despite wrongful admission of the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Section 60 operated only on Mr Calin's representations to police that were admissible for the purpose of showing a prior inconsistent statement and affecting his credibility. It did not make the appellant's alleged representations to Mr Calin, as reported second hand by Mr Calin, admissible as proof of the truth of the alleged confession. Because the trial judge allowed the jury to treat those prior statements as evidence that the appellant had confessed, the evidence was wrongly received in a way that may have deprived the appellant of a real chance of acquittal, so the proviso should not be applied.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction quashed; new trial ordered.

Orders

  • ['Appeal allowed.' 'Set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales made on 5 May 1997 dismissing the appeal to that Court against conviction. In lieu thereof, order that the appeal to that Court be allowed, the conviction be quashed, and there be a new trial.']