Plaintiff A & B v Bird; Plaintiff C v Bird [2016] NSWSC 997

Plaintiff A & B v Bird; Plaintiff C v Bird [2016] NSWSC 997

Given the extent, complexity, and context-dependence of the hearsay, tendency, and coincidence evidence (particularly the risk of contamination and lack of full evidentiary picture), and the discretionary nature of s 192A, it is not appropriate to make advance admissibility rulings; such determinations should be left for the trial judge.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application; Advance Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome
Applications refused
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Hearsay' 'advance Rulings on Evidence' 'tendency and Coincidence Evidence' 'suppression Orders']
['evidence Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['admissibility of Hearsay' 'advance Rulings on Evidence' 'tendency and Coincidence Evidence' 'suppression Orders']

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

Civil / Interlocutory Application; Advance Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should make advance rulings on the admissibility and/or use of hearsay evidence under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) concerning police and medical interviews/statements of children and parents;' 'Whether disclosure evidence regarding alleged child sexual abuse is admissible under hearsay and tendency/coincidence provisions of Evidence Act 1995 (NSW);' 'Whether questions of contamination, witness competence, and probative/prejudicial balance require admission to be determined at trial rather than pre-trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the extent, complexity, and context-dependence of the hearsay, tendency, and coincidence evidence (particularly the risk of contamination and lack of full evidentiary picture), and the discretionary nature of s 192A, it is not appropriate to make advance admissibility rulings; such determinations should be left for the trial judge.

Court Disposition

Applications refused

Orders

  • ['Applications for advance rulings are dismissed.' "Plaintiffs to pay Defendant's costs of the applications, subject to Plaintiffs' right within 7 days to apply to discharge the costs order."]