R v Hawkins (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1410

R v Hawkins (No 5) [2020] NSWSC 1410

Leave is granted under s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for the Crown to cross-examine the witness, but only in a limited manner: questioning must first refer to Ms Chaffey's February 2019 statement and her recent evidence, followed by propositions testing whether she was mistaken; questions suggesting a motive to lie based on friendship with Ms Hardes are not permitted.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Daniel Mark Hawkins
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Leave granted with conditions
Legal Topics
Unfavourable Witnesses, Leave to Cross Examine Own Witness, S 38 Evidence Act
Criminal Law Evidence Unfavourable Witnesses Leave to Cross Examine Own Witness S 38 Evidence Act

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 5 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Daniel Mark Hawkins

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Crown should be granted leave under s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to cross-examine its own witness
  2. 2 Appropriate scope of leave for questioning an unfavourable witness

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is granted under s 38(1)(a) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for the Crown to cross-examine the witness, but only in a limited manner: questioning must first refer to Ms Chaffey's February 2019 statement and her recent evidence, followed by propositions testing whether she was mistaken; questions suggesting a motive to lie based on friendship with Ms Hardes are not permitted.

Court Disposition

Leave granted with conditions

Orders

  • Leave is given pursuant to s 38(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to question the witness as though the Crown was cross-examining the witness, as set out in paragraphs 21-23 of this judgment.
  • Leave is circumscribed: questioning must first refer to Ms Chaffey’s February 2019 statement and her answer in evidence, before propositions about her being mistaken may be put.