R v Dolding [2018] NSWCCA 127

R v Dolding [2018] NSWCCA 127

It was reasonably open to find that the respondent and Ms Maniskas shared a common purpose (the sale and purchase of heroin), that Ms Maniskas made representations in furtherance of that common purpose, and that those representations were capable of being attributed to the respondent under s 87(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for the limited purpose of considering them as admissions. The trial judge erred in concluding otherwise. However, satisfaction of s 87(1)(c) criteria is not determinative of final admissibility in the substantive proceedings.

Parties
Appellant: The Crown; Respondent: Katrina Janet Dolding
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Hearsay, Admissions, Common Purpose, Co Conspirator’s Rule, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Hearsay Admissions Common Purpose Co Conspirator’s Rule Admissibility of Evidence

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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Appellant

Katrina Janet Dolding

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 87(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) permits admission of representations made in furtherance of a common purpose extraneous to the proceedings
  2. 2 Whether conversations between a third party and an undercover operative can be admitted against the accused as admissions under s 87(1)(c)
  3. 3 Meaning of 'representation' under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

It was reasonably open to find that the respondent and Ms Maniskas shared a common purpose (the sale and purchase of heroin), that Ms Maniskas made representations in furtherance of that common purpose, and that those representations were capable of being attributed to the respondent under s 87(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for the limited purpose of considering them as admissions. The trial judge erred in concluding otherwise. However, satisfaction of s 87(1)(c) criteria is not determinative of final admissibility in the substantive proceedings.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • The rulings made on 27 February 2018 rejecting the tender of certain evidence proposed to be led by the Crown set aside