The Queen v G H [2000] FCA 1618

The Queen v G H [2000] FCA 1618

The statements by GH to the police that he shot himself accidentally were not admissions within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because they were not, on their face, adverse to his interests in the outcome of the proceeding; they were exculpatory and only become adverse if their falsity is proven. As such, s 84 does not render them inadmissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Reference Appeal (criminal) / Post Acquittal Decision on Questions of Law
Outcome
Questions of law answered: 1. No (statements are not admissions); 2. Question does not arise.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Admissions' 'scope of S 84 Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'definition of Admission' 'statements as Part of Actus Reus' 'criminal Procedure']
['evidence Law' 'criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Admissions' 'scope of S 84 Evidence Act 1995 (cth)' 'definition of Admission' 'statements as Part of Actus Reus' 'criminal Procedure']

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

Reference Appeal (criminal) / Post Acquittal Decision on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Are exculpatory statements by an accused to police 'admissions' within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)?" 'Are such statements inadmissible by virtue of s 84 of the Evidence Act if influenced by threats?']

Ratio Decidendi

The statements by GH to the police that he shot himself accidentally were not admissions within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) because they were not, on their face, adverse to his interests in the outcome of the proceeding; they were exculpatory and only become adverse if their falsity is proven. As such, s 84 does not render them inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Questions of law answered: 1. No (statements are not admissions); 2. Question does not arise.

Orders

  • ['Question 1 answered: No.' 'Question 2 does not arise.']