R v Hawkins (No 8) [2020] NSWSC 1434

Leave to cross-examine Nakita Martyn about the omitted detail in her recollection is refused because, considering s 38 and s 192 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), her evidence was not unfavourable nor sufficiently inconsistent, recollection was admitted to be patchy, the police statement was made 18 months after the event, and in all circumstances, it would be unfair to the accused to grant leave.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 14 October 2020
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial
Outcome: leave to cross-examine refused
Legal Topics: ['unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'cross Examination' 'procedural Fairness']

['evidence Law' 'criminal Law'] ['unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'cross Examination' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine Nakita Martyn under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) based on alleged prior inconsistent statement or unfavourable evidence' "Whether the absence of certain details in the witness's trial evidence constitutes an unfavourable witness or prior inconsistent statement for the purposes of s 38 of the Act" 'Consideration of s 192 of the Evidence Act and fairness to the accused']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

leave to cross-examine refused

Orders

['Leave to cross-examine Nakita Martyn about part of her recount of a conversation on 8 December 2018 first recounted in May 2020 is refused.']