LAW OF EVIDENCE LPAB – Summer 2016/2017 Week 6.

LAW OF EVIDENCE LPAB – Summer 2016/2017 Week 6

Admissibility – hearsay

This Week 3(3) Hearsay 3(3)(a) The general rule EA ss 59, 60, 136
Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 (KOP [7.30]) Kamleh v The Queen (2005) 213 ALR 97 (KOP [7.40]) Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) 3(3)(b) Evidence used for a non-hearsay purpose EA s 60 Quick v Stoland Pty Ltd (1998) 87 FCR 371 (KOP [7.70]) Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 4) (2004) 214 ALR 608 (KOP [7.80]) 3(3)(c) First-hand hearsay exceptions (i) Availability and requirements EA ss 61, 62, 67 Caterpillar Inc v John Deere Limited (No 2) (2000) 181 ALR 108 (KOP [7.100]) The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Franklin [2014] NSWCA 329 (KOP [7.110])

This Week 3(3) Hearsay (i) Civil cases EA ss 63, 64
Caterpillar Inc v John Deere Limited (No 2) (2000) 181 ALR 108 (KOP [7.100]) (ii) Criminal cases EA ss 65, 66 Williams v The Queen (2000) 119 A Crim R 490 (KOP [7.130]) Harris v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 232 (KOP [7.140]) Munro v R [2014] ACTCA 11 (KOP [7.540]) Baker v The Queen (2012) (KOP [7.160]) Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Graham v The Queen (1998) 1245 CLR CLR 606 (KOP [7.180]) R v XY [2010] NSWCCA 181 (KOP [7.190]) LMD v R [2013] VSCA 164 (KOP [7.200]) I S J v The Queen [2012] VSCA 321 (KOP [7.210]) Clay v The Queen [2014] VSCA 269(KOP [7.220])

3(3)(d) Business records EA s 69 Lancaster v The Queen [2014] VSCA 333 (KOP [7.240]) Thomas v State of NSW [2008] NSWCA 316 (KOP [7.250]) Lithgow City Council v Jackson (2011) 281 ALR 223 (KOP [7.260] Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Air New Zealand Ltd (No 1) [2012] FCA 1355 (KOP [7.270] 3(3)(e) Other exceptions (not examinable) EA s

59 The hearsay rule-exclusion of hearsay evidence Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation. Such a fact is in this Part referred to as an asserted fact. (2A) For the purposes of determining under subsection (1) whether it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert a particular fact by the representation, the court may have regard to the circumstances in which the representation was made. Note : Subsection (2A) was inserted as a response to the decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359.

Dictionary - "previous representation" means a representation made otherwise than in the course of giving evidence in the proceeding in which evidence of the representation is sought to be adduced. "representation" includes: an express or implied representation (whether oral or in writing), or a representation to be inferred from conduct, or a representation not intended by its maker to be communicated to or seen by another person, or (d) a representation that for any reason is not communicated.

59 The hearsay rule-exclusion of hearsay evidence Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation.

What is wrong with hearsay evidence? Not on oath Not able to cross-examine the maker Not the best evidence Danger of inaccuracy Risk of fabrication

Examples: 1 D is the defendant in a sexual assault trial W has made a statement to the police that X told W that X had seen D leave a night club with the victim shortly before the sexual assault is alleged to have occurred. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, evidence of what X told W cannot be given at the trial.

Examples: 1 Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, evidence of what X told W cannot be given at the trial.

Examples: 2 P had told W that the handbrake on W’s car did not work.

Examples: 2 Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, evidence of that statement cannot be given by P, W or anyone else to prove that the handbrake was defective.

Examples: 3 W had bought a video cassette recorder and written down its serial number on a document.

Examples: 3 Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, the document is inadmissible to prove that a video cassette recorder later found in D’s possession was the video cassette recorder bought by W

Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 (KOP[7.30]) Charged with possession of ammo without authority. On a police search for a terrorist camp, he was found wearing a belt containing 20 rounds of ammunition. He said that he had been captured by terrorists and was under duress to follow their orders or be killed. They had forced him to carry the ammunition. When caught, he was planning to surrender and was on his way to do so. He tried to admit evidence of his conversations with the terrorists and their threats. Disallowed because it was hearsay – needed to call the terrorists to give the representations. Sentenced to death.

Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 (KOP[7.30]) Privy Council held: Not hearsay – because not a hearsay purpose. Purpose of evidence was to prove duress (his mental state) which was relevant to his defence. “Evidence of a statement made to a witness by a person who is not himself called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the evidence, not the truth of the statement, but the fact that it was made. The fact that the statement was made, quite apart from its truth, is frequently relevant in considering the mental state and conduct thereafter of the witness or of some other person in whose presence the statement was made.”

Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 (KOP[7.30]) This does not offend the principles behind the rule against hearsay, because: the truthfulness of the words said is not a matter that needs testing (assume that the terrorists said: ‘carry this ammunition or we will shoot you’ – it is not important whether the terrorist actually intended to shoot him) What is relevant to his defence is the fact that the terrorist said these words, and he was therefore afraid. These things can be tested by cross-examining Subramaniam himself.

Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor [1956] 1 WLR 965 (KOP[7.30]) The evidence is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. The evidence is not hearsay and it is admissible when it is proposed to establish by evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made (relevant?) Here, the evidence was relied upon not to prove the truth of what the terrorists were saying, but that there was something said which caused the defendant to fear them and to follow their instructions: “The evidence of the appellant, such as it was, suggested generally that he was in fear, that he planned to escape, and that he had no alternative but to do as the terrorists asked him to do.”

Example: If a bank teller in an armed robbery case gives evidence that the bank robber said ‘Hand over your money or I will kill you’, the evidence is not led in order to prove anything which the bank robber was trying to assert as true. The evidence is being led in order to prove that the words were uttered, which go to proving that a robbery was committed. However if the bank teller alleges that an acquaintance told him ‘The Smith boys did that stick up’, it would be hearsay for the bank teller to give evidence of that conversation. The distinction is sometimes described this way: In the first case, all the bank teller is intending to assert is that he heard the words spoken. The significance of the evidence is the fact that the words were said. In the second case, the acquaintance of the bank teller is intending to assert that the statement ‘The Smith boys did that stick up’ is true. That evidence is prima facie inadmissible under the hearsay rule.

When is a previous representation admitted for non hearsay purpose?
Examples: Evidence admitted non hearsay purpose. for a Prove fact that a Subramaniam representation previous was made Credibility purpose (2001) 207 CLR 96 Adam NSWCCA 214 Lawson [2000] expert report Basis of

R v Lawson [2000] NSWCCA 214* The complainant’s previous representations were admitted to prove the basis of the expert’s opinion. This means they were admitted for a non-hearsay purpose and now could be used for a hearsay purpose because of s 60.

Kamleh v The Queen (2005) 213 ALR 97 (KOP[7.40]) Convicted of murder of prostitute and pimp. Co-offender charged with manslaughter and tried separately. Neither defendant gave evidence at hearing. Issue was admissibility of out of court statements to police and another. Fact in issue was whether defendant was in the unit between 1 and 4 am on 3 April 2000. A fact relevant to this was whether the co-defendant Zapia was in the unit at the same time (judge found that they were together throughout this time).

Kamleh v The Queen (2005) 213 ALR 97 (KOP[7.40]) A witness (Simoniuk) gave evidence that Zapia told to him ‘about the shootings’ and told him that he (Zapia) ‘had turned up the T.V.’ Evidence of this conversation could support the inference that Zappia (and therefore Kamleh) was in the apartment at that time of the shooting (the cleaners found the TV turned up and this had not been reported anywhere else). The prosecution relied upon this to show that Zappia knew that TV had been turned up – the inference was that was likely to only have been available to someone in the room. Held: Prosecution tendered records of interview of defendant with Zappia which included discussion of telephone calls. This conversation was not relied on for a hearsay purpose because it was not tendered as evidence that Zappia had in fact turned the volume of the television set up. Rather, the fact Zappia said what he did about the television set was relevant because it revealed a state of knowledge on Zappia’s part that tended to prove he was at the scene of the crime at the time of the killings (only someone in the room would know that the T.V. had been turned up). [16]

Kamleh v The Queen (2005) 213 ALR 97 (KOP[7.40]) Held – Other telephone calls between the defendants admissible, not to prove the truth of the contents of the calls, but to prove that they had concocted an alibi together. In fact, prosecution case was that the representations in the telephone conversations were not true, but they showed that the alibis were the same. Statements of state of mind of intention are not hearsay if relevantly relied on for that purpose rather than to prove the contents of the statements.

Approach to applying s 59: Identify the previous representation. What is the intended asserted fact in the previous representation? That is, what fact is the maker of the previous representation intending to assert by making the representation? 3. Is the previous representation being adduced to prove that asserted fact in the previous representation? – if yes, then section 59 excludes the evidence (see if an exception applies).

Section 60: Exception evidence relevant for a non-hearsay purpose (1) The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation that is admitted because it is relevant for a purpose other than proof of an asserted fact. (2) This section applies whether or not the person who made the representation had personal knowledge of the asserted fact (within the meaning of section 62) Note: Subsection (2) was inserted as a response to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Lee v The Queen(1998) 195 CLR 594 . (3) However, this section does not apply in a criminal proceeding to evidence of an admission. The admission might still be admissible under section 81 as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is “first-hand” hearsay: see section 82.

Effect of section 60 At common law, where hearsay evidence is admitted for a non-hearsay purpose, the court is not usually permitted to use it for its hearsay purpose, even where it is relevant for that purpose. This applies, for example, to evidence of a prior inconsistent statement of a witness. The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation that is admitted because it is relevant for a purpose other than proof of the fact intended to be asserted by the representation. e.g. to show that the witnesses is/is not credible. But even if it is admitted for that purpose, at common law, the hearsay rule prevented that representation being adduced to prove the truth of its contents. Section 60 allows evidence that has been admitted for a non-hearsay purpose to also me relied upon for its hearsay purpose.

Effect of section 60 The ALRC identified two major areas where difficulties arose from the common law principle that evidence admitted for a non-hearsay purpose could not be used for a hearsay purpose, even though the evidence was also relevant for the hearsay purpose. They are: prior consistent and inconsistent statements; and the factual basis of an expert’s opinion. Prior statements At common law, a prior statement of a witness can be used in prescribed circumstances for the purpose of deciding whether to believe the witness, but cannot be used for the purpose of deciding the truth of the facts asserted in the statement. Extensive criticism of this situation was identified in ALRC 26.

Effect of section 60 This criticism focused on the following: the exclusion of probative evidence; the extreme difficulty, if not impossibility, of making the required distinction between use of the evidence for the hearsay purpose and for the non-hearsay purpose; the undesirability of proceeding on the assumption that such a distinction can be made easily or at all; and the questionable reasoning involved in the distinction.

Effect of section 60 For example: Evidence in Court: ‘I was there; I saw it happen.’ Cross-examination: ‘Did you not say on a prior occasion, “I was not there; I didn’t see it happen”?’ Force of Rule: If the prior statement is admitted, or is denied but independently proved, then, subject to considering any explanation given by the witness: that statement may be taken as making it less likely that the witness was there and saw it happen (i.e. may be used to lessen the weight to be given to his testimony), but it may not be used as rendering it more likely that he was not there and did not see it happen (i.e. may not be used as evidence of the truth of the prior statement).

Effect of section 60 Factual basis of expert opinion evidence An expert’s opinion involves the application of the expert’s special knowledge to relevant facts to produce an opinion. At common law, if those facts are observed by the expert, he or she can give evidence to prove those facts. Typically, however, the expert relies partly upon statements made to him or her by others about their observations of events which are facts in issue, together with a wide range of factual information from more remote sources. These statements and other sources of information can range widely and include: statements to a medical expert by a person injured about the circumstances in of injury and the subsequent progress of those injuries and past and present symptoms; information gathered by an expert valuer from a variety of people about the nature and quality of properties and the prices at which they were sold;

Effect of section 60 Factual basis of expert opinion evidence information gathered by accountants and auditors (including financial records and other sources, including people) for the purpose of expressing opinions about the financial position or the management of companies; knowledge acquired by experts from reading the work of other experts and from discussion with them; the reported data of fellow experts relied upon by such persons as scientists and technical experts in giving expert opinion evidence; factual material commonly relied upon in a particular industry or trade or calling.

Effect of section 60 Factual basis of expert opinion evidence The common law and the uniform Evidence Acts require that the facts and factual assumptions made and relied upon by a witness giving expert opinion evidence be sufficiently identified; evidence of matters such as those listed above is relevant for that purpose. Unqualified, the common law hearsay rule could, however, be used to prevent the expert’s evidence on these matters being used to prove the truth of the facts relied upon in forming the expert opinion. Through necessity, the common law hearsay rule has been qualified both by judicial decision and legislation. the accumulated knowledge acquired by the expert;

Effect of section 60 Factual basis of expert opinion evidence The ALRC explored the scope of these common law exceptions in relation to expert opinion. The proposal that became s 60 was formulated with these exceptions in mind, with the intention that s 60 would perform the role the miscellaneous common law exceptions had performed and the complication of specific exceptions for these kinds of evidence avoided.

Effect of section 60 At the same time, it is recognised that there will be situations where s 60 could allow evidence of doubtful probative value to be received, and also evidence that cannot be adequately tested because the person who made the statement to the expert is not called to testify. In these situations, the fact-finding process and the fairness of the proceeding are challenged. To address these possibilities, the uniform Evidence Acts contain Part 3.11, which can be invoked either to exclude the evidence or to limit its permitted use. Part 3.11 also recognises the special policy concerns related to the criminal trial. It is understandable that a person considering s 60 for the first time would see it as an extremely bold departure from the common law. However, the change must be considered in the context described above: that of the realities of the trial, and the statutory context in which s 60 operates. Viewed in that light, it is clear that s 60 is the result of a cautious approach to a number of major issues, and that it results in a simple and sound solution to those issues.

Effect of section 60 (Prior to amendment – not current) If a previous representation is admitted for non hearsay purpose then it can be used for a hearsay purpose. Subject to discretion to limit (s 136).

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) Convicted of assault with intention to rob Defence was that the robbers ran out and gave him the gun Calin (prosecution witness) gave statement of what Lee said to him ‘… leave me alone, cause I’m running because I fired two shots … I did a job and the other guy was with me bailed out’ At trial Cailan said that he did not recall these statements Cross-examined by crown (s 38 and 43).

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) In oral evidence, Calin admitted signing the statement to police but denied that the statements in the signed document were his. The prosecution then called the police officer who prepared the statement, and evidence of the representation was admitted through that officer. Another police officer testified that Calin made a similar oral statement to that officer. Both the signed statement and evidence of the oral statement made by Calin to the police were admitted into evidence.

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) Three pieces of evidence An account of what Calin had done. An account of what Calin had seen. An account of a conversation between Calin and Lee. What was the purpose of Calin giving evidence of Lee’s previous representations? In other words, what is that person intending to assert in the previous representation? “The fact that the statement or the conduct concerned might unintentionally convey some assertion is not the point. The inquiry is about what the person who made the representation intended to assert by it.” [22]

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) What Calin did and saw How did the High Court deal with Calin’s previous representation of what Lee did (i.e. “saw him walking fast” and “sweating”)? Who made the previous representation? - Calin How was this previous representation admitted? - It was admitted as a prior inconsistent statement (because Calin denied this testimony in court) What use could be made of the previous representation? [26] – Attack the credibility of Calin. But then, pursuant to s 60 it could then be used to prove the truth of the statement – that Calin saw Lee do those things. (Remember the police officer is giving evidence of Calin’s report of these things – “Calin told me he saw….”

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) What Calin heard How did the High Court deal with Calin’s previous representation of what Lee said (i.e. “Leave me alone, cause I’m running because I fired two shots…I did a job and the other guy was with me bailed out”)? Who made the previous representation? Calin (to the police officer) What did Lee intend to assert? That it was true (presumably). BUT, what did Calin intend to assert when he told the police? Only that Lee told him these things. Not that the things that Lee told him were true (because he could not know). How was this previous representation admitted? As a PIS What use could be made of the previous representation? They could not be used to prove the truth of the statements because that is not what Calin asserted by the statement, and s 60 will not operate to make them admissible. (Remember the police officer is giving evidence of Calin’s report of these things – “Calin told me that Lee told him that….”

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) The High Court said in a joint judgment that evidence of what Calin reported Lee had said ‘went only’ to Calin’s credibility as evidence of a prior inconsistent statement. The court took the view that Calin intended to assert that he had heard Lee say the words attributed to him but did not intend to assert the truth of what Lee had said. It is important to identify the asserted fact in the previous representation and whether the previous representation is being admitted to prove that asserted fact. Calin’s statement to police could not be used to prove Lee’s confession. The only asserted fact in Calin’s previous representation was an assertion by Calin that Lee said something. (But then doesn’t this make it a non-hearsay purpose?)

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) The Court’s reasoning proposition encapsulates the following steps: s 60 operates only on representations that are excluded by s 59. (b) s 59 operates only on evidence of a previous representation made by a person to prove the existence of a fact that the person intended to assert by the representation. (c) Therefore, s 60 does not apply to make admissible evidence of a representation the truth of which the witness did not intend to assert.

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) Applying these steps to the facts of Lee, evidence of Calin’s statement to the police could not be used as truth of the admission made to Calin because Calin could not be taken to have intended to assert the truth of the admission. Uncertainty arises from the above formulation. For example, if Calin’s statement was not intended to assert the truth of the admission, on what basis did s 59 apply? By definition, s 59 only applies ‘to prove the existence of a fact that the person intended to assert’.

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) “To put the matter another way, s 60 does not convert evidence of what was said, out of court, into evidence of some fact that the person speaking out of court did not intend to assert.” Representor Representee Representee/Witness (What did she intend to assert?) (What did she intend to assert?) Limit of operation of s 60

Lee v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594 (KOP [7.60]) Put simply, according to Lee v The Queen, s 60 only operated on “first-hand hearsay.” (But now amended…) Representor Representee Representee/Witness (Second-hand hearsay) (First-hand hearsay) Limit of operation of s 60

Section 60: Exception evidence relevant for a non-hearsay purpose (Amended version) (1) The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation that is admitted because it is relevant for a purpose other than proof of an asserted fact. (2) This section applies whether or not the person who made the representation had personal knowledge of the asserted fact (within the meaning of section 62) Note: Subsection (2) was inserted as a response to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Lee v The Queen(1998) 195 CLR 594 . (3) However, this section does not apply in a criminal proceeding to evidence of an admission. The admission might still be admissible under section 81 as an exception to the hearsay rule if it is “first-hand” hearsay: see section 82.

Now (because of s 60(2)), s 60 operates upon second-hand and more remote hearsay. Representor Representee Representee/Witness (Second-hand + hearsay) (First-hand hearsay) Limit of operation of s 60

Now, s 60 operates upon second-hand and more remote hearsay. But s 60(3) still preserves the result in Lee, because it excludes the operation of s 60 in relation to admissions in criminal proceedings (which it was in Lee). We will discuss admissions in later weeks.

Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 4) (2004) (KOP[7.80]) Native title claim. Expert report – anthropological evidence. Report included factual matters used to support the basis of the expert opinion – objected to. Was this hearsay? No Effect of s 60? An order under s 136 was made to limit the use of this material because it was unfairly prejudicial (s 136(a)).

Quick v Stoland (1998) 87 FCR 371 (KOP[7.70]) Trial judge allowed report of accounting expert, who said company was insolvent. The expert report summarised financial records of the company, including financial records not put in to evidence. Report included factual matters used to support the basis of the expert opinion – objected to. Was relevant to prove the factual basis of the report If it is hearsay, admissible pursuant to s 60. Here there was no genuine dispute as to the financial evidence. However, if the facts proved by the operation of s 60 are in conflict with proven facts or are unreliable, it is unsatisfactory to rely upon s 60, and an order under s 136 can be made to limit the use of this material because it is unfairly prejudicial (s 136(a)). Or if in an expert report, the expert can be required to express her opinion as a hypothetical.

Approach to applying s 59 (again): Identify the previous representation. What is the intended asserted fact in the previous representation? That is, what fact is the maker of the previous representation intending to assert by making the representation? 3. Is the previous representation being adduced to prove that asserted fact in the previous representation? – if yes, then section 59 excludes the evidence (see if an exception applies).

Unintended/implied assertions: (not examinable) If the fact that the representor sought to assert by making the representation is not the fact that is being sought to prove – the hearsay rule does not apply, because the assertion of the fact to be proved is unintended (assuming that it does prove it).

Unintended/implied assertions: (not examinable) The common law has grappled with the problem of when implied assertions (either assertions implied from statement not intended to assert a particular fact, or assertions implied from conduct not intended to assert a particular fact). Should they fall within the rule against hearsay? Consider: W testifies that she saw a person running from a building yelling, “There is a fire! Call the fire brigade!” W testifies that she saw a person running from a building yelling, “Call the fire brigade!” W testifies that she saw a person run from a building, grab a fire extinguisher and run back in. Which should be hearsay?

Implied/Unintended assertions: (not examinable) Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 (KOP, 235)* Charged with murder. Night before murder child took a telephone call and said “Hello daddy.” Who made the previous representation? 2. What is the asserted fact in the representation? – Greeting? 3. Is the previous representation being tendered to prove the asserted fact, or something else? - It was a being used to prove the identity of the caller.

Unintended assertions: (not examinable) Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283 (KOP, 231)* Is it hearsay? Yes - the High Court held (at common law) that this was admissible hearsay (because an exception applied). But the ALRC argues that under the Evidence Act, it is unlikely the child would intend to assert the identity of the caller. The child’s statement is an unintended assertion and would not be excluded by s 59 because s 59 only applies to INTENDED assertions.

Unintended assertions – Examples (1):(not examinable) Wendy is charged with damage to Otto’s property. Wendy contends that she has never met Otto before in her life. Rollo offers evidence that 2 days before the crime, Wendy was seen to wave at Otto and then make an obscene gesture. Would evidence of this conduct be excluded by s 59? By the wave, can Wendy be taken to have to have INTENDED a display of recognition of Otto. This is relevant to the claim that she did not know Otto. By the obscene gesture, Wendy can be taken to have INTENDED an expression of distaste towards Otto. This affects an assessment of the probability that W acted maliciously towards Otto’s property.

Unintended assertions – Examples (2): (not examinable) Owner of a vessel takes her husband and children to sea on the ship. Tendered to prove the ship was seaworthy. The evidence rationally affects an assessment of that probability. Is it excluded by s 59? Can she be taken to have intended to assert anything of that nature by her conduct – i.e. was her intention was to show them the ship or to show that it was seaworthy Probably not.

Exceptions to the hearsay rule: • Evidence relevant for a non-hearsay purpose (sections 59, 60) • First-hand hearsay (sections ) • Contemporaneous statements about a person’s health (section 66A) • Business records (section 69) • Tags and labels (section 70) • Electronic communications (section 71) • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs (section 72)

Exceptions to the hearsay rule: • Marriage, family history or family relationships (section 73) • Public or general rights (section 74) • Use of evidence in interlocutory proceedings (section 75) • Admissions (section 81) • Representations about employment or authority (section 87 (2)) • Exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of judgments and convictions (section 92 (3)) • Character and expert opinion about accused persons (sections 110 and 111).

Exceptions to the hearsay rule: 61 - Exceptions to the hearsay rule dependent on competency This Part does not enable use of a previous representation to prove the existence of an asserted fact if, when the representation was made, the person who made it was not competent to give evidence about the fact because of section 13 (1). This section does not apply to a contemporaneous representation made by a person about his or her health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind. Note : For the admissibility of such contemporaneous representations, see section 66A. (3) For the purposes of this section, it is presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that when the representation was made the person who made it was competent to give evidence about the asserted fact.

Exceptions to the hearsay rule: 62 - Restriction to “first-hand” hearsay A reference in this Division (other than in subsection (2)) to a previous representation is a reference to a previous representation that was made by a person who had personal knowledge of an asserted fact. A person has personal knowledge of the asserted fact if his or her knowledge of the fact was, or might reasonably be supposed to have been, based on something that the person saw, heard or otherwise perceived, other than a previous representation made by another person about the fact. For the purposes of section 66A, a person has personal knowledge of the asserted fact if it is a fact about the person’s health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind at the time the representation referred to in that section was made.

Exceptions to the hearsay rule: X represents to M - M is witness of representation. (1st hand) X represents to M who represents to L - L is a witness of representation. (2nd hand)

63 - Exception: civil proceedings if maker not available This section applies in a civil proceeding if a person who made a previous representation is not available to give evidence about an asserted fact. The hearsay rule does not apply to: evidence of the representation that is given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made, or a document so far as it contains the representation, or another representation to which it is reasonably necessary to refer in order to understand the representation. Notes : 1 Section 67 imposes notice requirements relating to this subsection. 2 Clause 4 of Part 2 of the Dictionary is about the availability of persons.

Dictionary Pt 2, 4 - Unavailability of persons For the purposes of this Act, a person is taken not to be available to give evidence about a fact if: the person is dead, or (b) the person is not competent to give the evidence about the fact, or (c) it would be unlawful for the person to give evidence about the fact, or (d) a provision of this Act prohibits the evidence being given, or (e) all reasonable steps have been taken, by the party seeking to prove the person is not available, to find the person or to secure his or her attendance, but without success, or (f) all reasonable steps have been taken, by the party seeking to prove the person is not available, to compel the person to give the evidence, but without success.

64 - Exception: civil proceedings if maker available This section applies in a civil proceeding if a person who made a previous representation is available to give evidence about an asserted fact. The hearsay rule does not apply to: evidence of the representation that is given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made, or a document so far as it contains the representation, or another representation to which it is reasonably necessary to refer in order to understand the representation, if it would cause undue expense or undue delay, or would not be reasonably practicable, to call the person who made the representation to give evidence. Note : Section 67 imposes notice requirements relating to this subsection. Section 68 is about objections to notices that relate to this subsection.

64 - Exception: civil proceedings if maker available If the person who made the representation has been or is to be called to give evidence, the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of the representation that is given by: that person, or (b) a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made. A document containing a representation to which subsection (3) applies must not be tendered before the conclusion of the examination in chief of the person who made the representation, unless the court gives leave. Note : Clause 4 of Part 2 of the Dictionary is about the availability of persons.

Caterpillar Inc. v John Deere Limited (No 2) (2000) (KOP [7.100]) Patent infringement – tractors. Wanted to admit expert evidence in depositions taken in an North American case concerning an North American expert. Relied on s 63(2) or 64(2). Issued s 67 notice. Deere claimed the expert was unavailable, as they had written to him inviting him to come to Australia to give evidence in the case. The expert did not respond. Re Dictionary s 4(1)(e) – [19]. Re Dictionary s 4(1)(f) – [20].

Caterpillar Inc. v John Deere Limited (No 2) (2000) (KOP [7.100]) In relation to s 63(2): Wrote to him and asked him to come to Australia to give evidence in the case. The expert did not respond. Did not appear to offer to pay his expenses and professional fees. It was not the expert’s job to start these negotiations Did not seek to make contact with him in other ways Caterpillar was a big client of his – not surprising that he did not respond Steps taken were insufficient – therefore “available”

Caterpillar Inc. v John Deere Limited (No 2) (2000) (KOP [7.100]) In relation to s 64(2) relevant factors included: Actual cost of securing witness. A comparison of that cost with value of stake in litigation. Assessment of importance of the witnesses evidence. Here no details of (i) or (ii) Here, the nature of the litigation (major patent case – which often involves witnesses from Northern Hemisphere) and apparent expense that the parties were going to prosecute the litigation, suggest that litigation of significant value His evidence seemed important Expense to get him not disproportionate – therefore not “undue.”

67 Notice to be given Sections 63 (2), 64 (2) and 65 (2), (3) and (8) do not apply to evidence adduced by a party unless that party has given reasonable notice in writing to each other party of the party’s intention to adduce the evidence. Notices given under subsection (1) are to be given in accordance with any regulations or rules of court made for the purposes of this section. The notice must state: the particular provisions of this Division on which the party intends to rely in arguing that the hearsay rule does not apply to the evidence, and (b) if section 64 (2) is such a provision-the grounds, specified in that provision, on which the party intends to rely.

67 Notice to be given (4) Despite subsection (1), if notice has not been given, the court may, on the application of a party, direct that one or more of those subsections is to apply despite the party’s failure to give notice. (5) The direction: is subject to such conditions (if any) as the court thinks fit, and in particular, may provide that, in relation to specified evidence, the subsection or subsections concerned apply with such modifications as the court specifies. See also: Evidence Regulations 2015 (NSW) – Reg 4 for details required in s 67 notice.

68 Objections to tender of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings if maker available (1) In a civil proceeding, if the notice discloses that it is not intended to call the person who made the previous representation concerned because it: would cause undue expense or undue delay, or would not be reasonably practicable, a party may, not later than 21 days after notice has been given, object to the tender of the evidence, or of a specified part of the evidence. (2) The objection is to be made by giving to each other party a written notice setting out the grounds on which the objection is made. (3) The court may, on the application of a party, determine the objection at or before the hearing.

68 Objections to tender of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings if maker available (4) If the objection is unreasonable, the court may order that, in any event, the party objecting is to bear the costs incurred by another party: in relation to the objection, and in calling the person who made the representation to give evidence. Note : This subsection differs from section 68 (4) of the Commonwealth Act because of the different way costs are ascertained by NSW courts

The Council of the NSW Bar Association v Franklin [2014] NSWCA 329 (KOP [7.110]) Barrister convicted of 4 assaults/sexual assaults. Went to gaol. Bar Association tried to strike him off and wanted to prove his conduct (not just fact of conviction) by tendering the transcript of the evidence of the victim and other witnesses in the criminal trial. Sought a pre-trial ruling under s 192A. Sought an order under s 190, that the hearsay rule in s 59 not apply to these transcripts because the matters were not in genuine dispute or calling for the witnesses would cause undue delay or expense. Bar Association also issued s 67 notices, referring to s 64(2) – the makers were all available. The Court dealt with this first.

The Council of the NSW Bar Association v Franklin [2014] NSWCA 329 (KOP[7.110]) The s 67 notices complied with r 4 of the Evidence Regulations. Would it be not reasonably practicable to call the victim because of her mental condition? A psychiatrist’s report said that appearing would negatively affect her psychiatric stability: PTSD and anxiety. Court held that it would not be practicable to call her because of her infirmity and it might be inferred that she was unwilling to give evidence (also don’t forget her cross-examination went in as well). All but one of the other witnesses lived out of Sydney and would have to stay overnight. Their previous evidence was on oath and they were available for cross-examination at the criminal hearing (not much was done). The XXM is part of the tender.

The Council of the NSW Bar Association v Franklin [2014] NSWCA 329 (KOP[7.110]) The evidence on application did not show any basis that their evidence is challenged for veracity or reliability to the extent that it is directed to facts that were not essential to the convictions. ? Therefore satisfied that it would cause undue delay to call them. Ruling under s 192A that s 64(2) applies and therefore hearsay rule does not apply to the transcript.

65 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker not available (1) This section applies in a criminal proceeding if a person who made a previous representation is not available to give evidence about an asserted fact.

Section 65 The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation that is given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made, if the representation was: (a) made under a duty to make that representation or to make representations of that kind, or made when or shortly after the asserted fact occurred and in circumstances that make it unlikely that the representation is a fabrication, or made in circumstances that make it highly probable that the representation is reliable, or (d) was: (i) against the interests of the person who made it at the time it was made, and (ii) made in circumstances that make it likely that the representation is reliable.

(3) The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation made in the course of giving evidence in an Australian or overseas proceeding if, in that proceeding, the defendant in the proceeding to which this section is being applied: cross-examined the person who made the representation about it, or had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the person who made the representation about it. Note : Section 67 imposes notice requirements relating to this subsection. Section 65

If there is more than one defendant in the criminal proceeding, evidence of a previous representation that: is given in an Australian or overseas proceeding, and (b) is admitted into evidence in the criminal proceeding because of subsection (3), cannot be used against a defendant who did not cross-examine, and did not have a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine, the person about the representation. For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), a defendant is taken to have had a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine a person if the defendant was not present at a time when the cross-examination of a person might have been conducted but: could reasonably have been present at that time, and if present could have cross-examined the person. Section 65

Section 65 (8) The hearsay rule does not apply to: evidence of a previous representation adduced by a defendant if the evidence is given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made, or a document tendered as evidence by a defendant so far as it contains a previous representation, or another representation to which it is reasonably necessary to refer in order to understand the representation. Note : Section 67 imposes notice requirements relating to this subsection. If evidence of a previous representation about a matter has been adduced by a defendant and has been admitted, the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of another representation about the matter that: is adduced by another party, an (b) is given by a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the other representation being made.

Note: s 65(2) applies to evidence given by a person, so does not apply to a document tendered, at least where there is no evidence given by a person who perceived the representation being made (e.g. written, typed): Conway v The Queen (2000) 98 FCR 204, [153].* On the other hand it has been held that where such a person does give evidence, this provision does not specify the form in which the evidence may be given (thus the document may be adduced through the witness): R v Suteski (2002) 128 A Crim R 275, [34].* Is there an argument that a person sees a representation in an being made when they open it and read it (given s 71)? Perhaps not?? e.g. Police reading giving evidence of PIS that she perceived when interviewing witness. Section 65

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Sio, drove Filihia to a brothel in Clyde. Filihia entered the brothel alone, armed with a knife, intending to commit robbery. During an altercation, Filihia stabbed Gaudry, who worked in the brothel. Gaudry later died from his wounds. Filihia removed from Gaudry's back pocket a pencil case which contained cash and left the brothel, running past Sio's car. Sio caught up with and collected Filihia, and accelerated away from the scene. Both offenders were apprehended by police shortly afterwards. Sio was charged on indictment with the murder of Gaudry and with armed robbery with wounding. Sio was acquitted of the murder of Gaudry, but convicted of armed robbery with wounding. An appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal was dismissed. The matter was appealed to the High Court of Australia.

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 In the Courts below, there was evidence of a representation by Filihia to the effect that Sio gave him the knife with which he stabbed Mr Gaudry. Filihia gave an ERISP in which he said "[Sio] already had [the knife] in his car" in answer to a question as to where he got the knife. Filihia participated in an identification parade from a photo array in which he identified Mr Sio as the driver of the car. This procedure was also conducted as an ERISP. On the same day Filihia gave two statements and said: "[I]t was [Sio] who put me up to robbing the brothel. He gave me the knife and drove me there.”

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Filihia was called to give evidence on a voir dire, but refused. Objection was taken to the tender of the ERISPs and statements on the basis of hearsay: s 59. The judge held that Filihia was ‘not available’ (because all reasonable steps had been taken to compel him to give evidence) and therefore admitted the evidence under s 65(2)(d) (and the applied the deeming provision in s 65(7)(b)) – as the representation tended to show that Filihia had committed a crime of which he had not yet been convicted. Sio was convicted. This issue was appealed (inter alium). The appeal was dismissed and Sio appealed to the High Court of Australia. Sio argued that the CCA misapplied s 65(2)(d)(ii) by viewing all the statements made by Filihia together, and concluding from his demeanour and the freshness of his recollection that these were circumstances which made it likely that Filihia's representations were reliable.

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Held: The CCA was wrong to consider the question of the likelihood of reliability in (65(2)(d)(ii)) by reference to the overall impression gained from all of Filihia’s statements (there were 4 different statements made over a 24 hour period). “..the application of s 65(2) proceeds upon the assumption that a party is seeking to prove a particular fact relevant to an issue in the case. It then requires the identification of the particular representation to be adduced in evidence as proof of that fact. The circumstances in which that representation was made may then be considered in order to determine whether the conditions of admissibility are met. This process must be observed in relation to each relevant fact sought to be proved by tendering evidence under s 65.”

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Held: “It is apparent in the present case that neither the trial judge nor the Court of Criminal Appeal considered any particular representation upon which the Crown sought to rely in this way; rather, the application of the provision was approached on a compendious basis whereby an overall impression was formed of the general reliability of the statements made by Mr Filihia and then all his statements were held to be admissible against Mr Sio. That compendious approach does not conform to the requirements of the Act.” [57]

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Held: Section 65(2)(d)(ii) requires a trial judge to be positively satisfied that the representation which is tendered was made in circumstances that make it likely to be reliable notwithstanding its hearsay character. [64] Here it was evidence of an accomplice (Filihia) against his co-offender (Sio). “Evidence by an accomplice against his or her co-offender has long been recognised as less than inherently reliable precisely because of the perceived risk of falsification.” Must look at the circumstances – the best that can be said is that near contemporaneity of the statement with the commission of the crimes in question meant that the risk of an honestly mistaken recollection was slight.

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Held: But the question mark over the reliability of the assertion by reason of the fact that it was made by an accomplice is not answered by pointing to the unlikelihood that Mr Filihia's memory of events had faded – CCA failed to consider this. CCA focused on: Contemporaneity It was against interest Although Filihia’s statements were generally against his interest, this statement (about the knife) was apt to minimise his culpability. Whilst s 65(2)(b)(i) was satisfied, this didn’t make it reliable for (ii)

Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32 Held: “The focus of attention of a trial judge…is directed by s 65(2)(d)(ii), not to the apparent truthfulness of the person making it, but to the objective circumstances in which it was made. The issue is whether the trial judge is affirmatively satisfied that, notwithstanding the hearsay character of the evidence, it is likely to be reliable evidence of the fact asserted.” … Attention is directed by the language of s 65(2)(d) to an assessment of the circumstances in which the statement was made to establish its likely reliability, rather than to a general assessment of whether or not it is likely that the representor is a reliable witness. This is precisely because the representor will not be a witness at the trial.” [70] – [72] Was unreliable because given by an accomplice, nothing else in the objective circumstances made it more reliable. Therefore it shouldn’t have been admitted. Conviction quashed – new trial for armed robbery

Williams v The Queen (2000) 119 A Crim R 490 (KOP [7.120]) Charged with robbery and attempting to pervert the course of justice. Buried gun in backyard of Stewart. 21 Nov 1996 – Robbery. 26 Nov 1996 – Video interview with Stewart. 31 Oct 1997 – Stewart died. Crown wanted to admit statement which included “I have done a rort”, and asking if he had an incinerator. Defence argued that interview was taken 5 days later – not “shortly after”

Williams v The Queen (2000) 119 A Crim R 490 (KOP [7.120]) It would be mistake to over-emphasise whether it was “fresh in the memory” Not just an issue of reliable memory, but provision serves to prevent concoction. The 5 day delay did not satisfy temporal requirement in 65(2)(b) – [49]. Court not to look at “all circumstances of the case” but circumstances at time at which representation was made when assessing ss 65(2)(b) and (c). – [54]. Here, circumstances made it likely that the representation was a fabrication [56] – [57]: Drug addict living on fringe Potential accomplice Had reasons to tell police what they wanted to hear

Harris v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 432 (KOP [7.130]) Convicted of manslaughter of Wright. Asked for cigarette outside club and then punched him in the head. Went to hospital but not admitted. Day after attack, Wright gave a statement to police and died a week later. Prosecution wanted to admit statement pursuant to s 65(2)(b) and (c). Held: A “short time” is not defined by some particular period of time. Each case has to be considered having regard to its own particular circumstances. In these circumstances, 24 hours OK

Harris v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 432 (KOP [7.130]) Unlikely that it was a fabrication because: Although the deceased had been drinking, only a mild level of intoxication. Statement not inherently unlikely. Statement was formally made with awareness that making a false formal statement could get him in trouble. Statement was made before he could appreciate seriousness of his injury.

Webb v R [2012] NSWCCA 216* In 1991, EF (70 years old) drove into the secure underground car park of her home. Webb watched EF open the door and then followed the vehicle into the car park. When the vehicle stopped, he confronted EF with a broken glass bottle and forced her to perform fellatio twice, and he attempted to penetrate her anally. He then stole EF's car and drove away in it. By 1885 the case was filed away as an unsolved crime and number of items of evidence were lost, including: her statement, photos, clothing. But a DNA sample was kept and in 2002 identified Webb. This was picked up in 2010. EF was re-interviewed in January 2011 (90 years old) but dies in April. Could the video recording of her interview be used in the prosecution of Webb – pursuant to s 65(2)(c)?

Webb v R [2012] NSWCCA 216* Held The recorded interview satisfied s 65(2)(c) – appeal dismissed, permanent stay refused. Although it was unusual that the defendant could not cross-examine the witness a stay would only be ordered in an extreme case. The loss of primary evidence does not of necessity render a trial unfair. The act that the complainant had died did not give rise to any automatic consequences with respect to the trial of Mr Webb. It was necessary that his Honour consider the areas of asserted prejudice. [73].

Webb v R [2012] NSWCCA 216* Held The Court upheld the judge’s findings that it was highly probable that the representation was reliable (65(2)(c)) despite the long efflux of time, because: of the close correlation between the substance of what was reported on the critical day in 1991 (and two days later) to witnesses who gave corroborating evidence in the trial and the substance of what appeared in the record of interview. the ongoing general consistency of the description of the episodes of forced fellatio.

Munro v R [2014] ACTCA 11 (KOP [7.150]) Charged with armed robbery and GBH. Evidence that waited at a bus stop near scene of the crime. DNA was found on cigarette butts that matched that of D. Grace provided evidence that he didn’t remember the day in question, but that he had a system of cleaning pavement and gutters. This evidence would help establish that cigarette was deposited after cleaning run, but before robbery. After giving the statement to the police, but before the trial, Grace died. Prosecution tendered his statement under s 65. On appeal this was attacked.

Munro v R [2014] ACTCA 11 (KOP [7.150]) Maj: Just because he gave a statement to the police does not make it more reliable for s 165(1)(b) or (c) – they may not tell the truth, or it may be unreliable for other reasons. Just knowing that you should tell the truth doesn’t mean that you will. It may make it more reliable but only if there are no countervailing incentives. It may only be a minor incentive, but can still be a factor. Here, open to judge to find it was reliable because: Evidence of a system that was likely to be well remembered because of regular repetition and because likely to be structured and therefore easier to recall

Munro v R [2014] ACTCA 11 (KOP [7.150]) Grace had no personal interest in outcome of proceedings. If Grace was trying to enhance his reputation as a cleaner by exaggerating his thoroughness, this would have been outweighed by an inclination to avoid giving false evidence about a matter that could at least to some extent have been checked with his boss. Also, the evidence as consistent with other evidence showing a clean bus stop. The limitations of this evidence that could have been undermined in XXM was within the imagination of the jury. And counsel could have addressed the jury on it. Judge gave a warning about the inability of the defence to XXM on this evidence

Munro v R [2014] ACTCA 11 (KOP [7.150]) Burns J Giving statement is relevant to determining whether reliable. Evidence of a system. Highly likely to be reliable. Evidence that he was respected by his superiors for cleaning and honesty. He must have been aware that police could check whether he really did his job well. In combination these factors make the evidence reliable. Refused to apply s 137

Baker v The Queen [2012] HCA 27 (KOP[7.160]) Two accused were tried jointly for murder. It was alleged that the murder occurred when the victim fell through a window on the first floor of a building during a fight which occurred in the early morning at a party. The prosecution argued that the two accused had attacked the victim and that he had fallen in the course of the attack. The precise circumstances of the fall were not known. Baker was convicted; the other was acquitted. The person acquitted had made statements to the police and to others who gave evidence at the trial to the effect that he had pushed the victim. Baker tried to rely on these statements. The judge ruled that the out-of-court statements were not admissible in the trial of Baker (convicted) because there was no exception to the hearsay rule which rendered them admissible.

Baker v The Queen [2012] HCA 27 (KOP[7.160]) Evidence Act not applied and common law relied upon. Previously in Bannon v The Queen, it was acknowledged that the common law of Australia has not to date recognised an exception for the out-of-court confessional statements of a co-accused or a third party from the operation of the rule. Appellant submitted that there should be this exception to the hearsay rule: ‘At a joint trial in which the prosecution relies on admissions by an accused, A, in proof of A’s guilt, and those admissions also tend to exculpate the co-accused, B, the trial judge should be required (or have the discretion) to direct that A’s admissions are evidence in B’s trial to be considered in exculpation of B.’ i.e. Third party confessions should be admissible.

Baker v The Queen [2012] HCA 27 (KOP[7.160]) High Court held: Section 65 provides a broad exception – broader than common law. Majority – NO. Appeal dismissed “The consequence of upholding the broad contention would be to effect a significant alteration to the common law of evidence in those States which to date have chosen not to adopt the Uniform Evidence Act or to modify the hearsay rule along the lines of the English legislation or otherwise. In circumstances in which the application of the hearsay rule in the appellant’s trial did not occasion a miscarriage of justice, the invitation to effect that change should be rejected.”

Baker v The Queen [2012] HCA 27 (KOP[7.160]) High Court held: Heydon J “The present common law in relation to hearsay exceptions should not be changed in the respects the appellant advocated. LM’s evidence was not admissible in the appellant’s favour. The trial judge’s direction was correct. The appeal should be dismissed.” [122] Therefore common law test is not as broad as s 65.

66 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker available (1) This section applies in a criminal proceeding if a person who made a previous representation is available to give evidence about an asserted fact. (2) If that person has been or is to be called to give evidence, the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of the representation that is given by: (a) that person, or a person who saw, heard or otherwise perceived the representation being made, if, when the representation was made, the occurrence of the asserted fact was fresh in the memory of the person who made the representation.

Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606 (KOP[7.180]) (Pre 2009 amendment – no 66(2A) Alleged sexual assaults when complainant was 9 and 10 (1987, 1988). Complainant told friend in 1994. Charges then laid. Friend gave evidence of complaint. Evidence admitted under common law (even though EA in force!). Appeal against conviction based on admissibility of complaint evidence.

Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606 (KOP[7.180]) (pre 2009 amendment – no s 66(2A) “The word "fresh", in its context in s 66, means "recent" or "immediate". It may also carry with it a connotation that describes the quality of the memory (as being "not deteriorated or changed by lapse of time") but the core of the meaning intended, is to describe the temporal relationship between "the occurrence of the asserted fact" and the time of making the representation. Although questions of fact and degree may arise, the temporal relationship required will very likely be measured in hours or days, not, as was the case here, in years. [4]

Graham v The Queen (1998) 195 CLR 606 (KOP[7.180]) (pre 2009 amendment – no s 66(2A) Could not have been fresh in the memory – Therefore not admissible under this section. Possibly could be admitted under s108(3). But case was conducted without reference to the Act, and under the Act admission of this evidence would not have been inevitable. Therefore appellant may have lost a significant chance at acquittal. Appeal allowed. But because of this decision……….

66 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker available (2A) In determining whether the occurrence of the asserted fact was fresh in the memory of a person, the court may take into account all matters that it considers are relevant to the question, including: (a) the nature of the event concerned, and (b) the age and health of the person, and (c) the period of time between the occurrence of the asserted fact and the making of the representation. Note : Subsection (2A) was inserted as a response to the decision of the High Court of Australia in Graham v The Queen(1998) 195 CLR 606.

66 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker available ALRC 102: “Graham has been applied in a large number of cases. In many of these, evidence of the complaint has been inadmissible because the representations were not considered to be ‘fresh’ because of the effluxion of time, including where complaints were made within months of the event. This has led to some concern about the operation of s 66 in such cases.” [8.69] “The Commissions find that there is strong support for amendment of s 66 to clarify that ‘freshness’ may be determined by a wide range of factors. Support comes from a variety of sources. The decisions of lower courts since Graham have often sought to limit Graham to its facts in order to retain flexibility in the interpretation of s 66. The more flexible approach in R v Vinh Le and R v Adam has been noted above.” [8.119]

R v XY [2010] NSWCCA 181 (KOP [7.190]) Step-brother forced his 8 year younger step-brother to perform acts of fellatio on 8 occasions in 2003 – 2005, whilst they were living in the same house. Several years later, he gave police interview and said that he had told a friend about this when in year 6 and then told his parents later in 2009. Was the complaint evidence admissible under the new s 66(2A)? Judge said no. DPP appealed this issue. Looked at history of ‘recent complaint’ evidence: at common law it was hearsay and was not used to prove the truth of the complaint. Sub-section (2A) is an interpretive section, although the three matters in it are not the only factors to be considered.

R v XY [2010] NSWCCA 181 (KOP [7.190]) The context of the phrase “fresh in the memory” no longer means that it is to be taken to mean “recent” or “immediate”. Now interpreted more widely. The core meaning is no longer an examination of the temporal relationship between the occurrence of the asserted fact and the making of the representation (although this is still a factor). The Court must also take into account the “nature of the event”. Judge’s finding of inexactness in the evidence is not borne out. The nature of the representation suggests that the events were firmly planted in the mind of the complainant. Was fresh in the memory. Therefore admissible. Here the unusual nature of the events was a significant factor Ambiguity or apparent inconsistency is not a reason to reject evidence in a criminal trial.

LMD v R [2013] VSCA 164 (KOP [7.200]) Accused convicted of indecent assault on a child under 16 and indecent act with a child under 16 in relation to his niece. She claims that on four occasions she was sexually molested by her uncle from when she was about 8 to 9 years old, in The complaint was not was made until many years later. Each of the complainant and the two friends gave evidence. Both of the friends said that the complainant had told them, albeit at different times, that she had been ‘molested’ by the applicant. She also told her then boyfriend (now husband) The complainant gave evidence that she was having difficulty having sexual intercourse because her mind then turned to what had happened. The trial judge allowed this complaint evidence to go before the jury. This was appealed.

LMD v R [2013] VSCA 164 (KOP [7.200]) Held: Correct to allow the evidence to go to the jury. Applied s 66. ‘On any view of the timelines applicable in this proceeding, the first complaint was made years after any incident of molestation as alleged by the complainant. She was seven or eight when the first alleged assault took place. She was about 15 when she spoke to her school friend, and 18 when she told her boyfriend about being molested. The period of time between the occurrence of the asserted fact and the making of the representation is one of the factors which the court may, by s 66(2A), take into account in determining whether that occurrence was fresh in the memory. The relevance of the passage of time is obvious. But other considerations may also be relevant, perhaps decisively so. The Act itself refers to the nature of the event concerned and the age and health of the representor. It also refers to ‘all matters that [the court] considers are relevant to the question’.

LMD v R [2013] VSCA 164 (KOP [7.200]) ‘The events to which the complainant referred when she said that she had been ‘molested’ were inherently likely to remain firmly in her mind, if not as to detail, then as to the general nature of the behaviour to which she says she was subjected. Had she never raised the topic with anyone before going to the police in 2003, she would certainly have been attacked on the basis that, had there been any substance in her allegations, she would have told someone about them. Her complaint was, therefore, evidence necessary to be called in the Crown case, at least from her; but once the conditions of s 66 were satisfied, then also from the persons to whom the representations were made, as evidence not only of consistency of conduct by the complainant but also as to the truth of the content of the representations. The conditions of s 66 were in my opinion clearly satisfied. That the events were fresh in the complainant’s memory was demonstrated by her reaction to the approaches made by her boyfriend when sexual intercourse between them was contemplated. If the events were fresh in her memory then, so too were they likely to have been when the complainant spoke to her school friend some four years earlier.’

LMD v R [2013] VSCA 164 (KOP [7.200]) ‘It is no answer to this proposition that the complainant did not descend into detail, or that the girlfriend gave no evidence about the complainant’s demeanour when referring to the molestation, or that the applicant was not identified by name. In the applicant’s written outline of submissions, it is put that the trial judge ignored the passage of time. As his Honour's ruling demonstrates, that submission is wrong. His Honour did take that circumstance into account.’ Event was fresh in her memory when the complaints were made. Lack of detail not a problem. S 66(2A) applicable.

ISJ v The Queen [2012] VSCA 321 (KOP [7.210]) Crown led evidence of complainants representations to 2 witnesses relating to her sexual relationship with appellant. Conversation took place in 2004 or 2005, 18 to 42 months after alleged offences took place. Crown tried to rely upon s 66 to get the representations in. Appellant said not fresh in her memory when she made the representations. Trial judge relied on R v XY, saying temporal relationship a relevant but not determinative factor. Followed R v XY. On appeal, appellant said no peculiar facts like in R v XY that would make events memorable. Ct ‘reserved consideration’ of whether R v XY put sufficient weight on temporal requirements.

Clay v The Queen [2014] VSCA 269 (KOP [7.220]) Clay convicted of sexual offences against 3 children when he was 15 to 18. Children were between 11 and 7. Offences alleged to have taken place between 1982 and The trial was in 2013. Each victim was permitted to give evidence or previous representations (evidence of recent complaint) pursuant to s 66. Clay appealed, including because previous representations about the allegations were not fresh in the memory of the victims. Looks at history of s 66 and cases dealing with ‘freshness’

Clay v The Queen [2014] VSCA 269 (KOP [7.220]) Looks at Odgers criticism of R v XY and R v LMD. Odgers said that In R v XY, the Court placed too much emphasis on the vividness of the events and therefore placed primacy on this factor. Odgers said that in R v LMD, the Court was wrong and again made the nature of the events the critical factor. Noted that ISJ left reconsideration of R v XY open.

Clay v The Queen [2014] VSCA 269 (KOP [7.220]) Here Court said facts were different. Nothing to suggest that conduct was fresh in her memory. Although the nature of the event may be a factor, so was the elapse of time (s 66(2A)(c)) and here at least two of the complaints were made 20 years later. Where ever the line is, this could not have been in the contemplation of the legislature. Failing actual evidence of freshness in the memory, this is too long and hearsay rule will apply.

66 Exception: criminal proceedings if maker available If a representation was made for the purpose of indicating the evidence that the person who made it would be able to give in an Australian or overseas proceeding, subsection (2) does not apply to evidence adduced by the prosecutor of the representation unless the representation concerns the identity of a person, place or thing. A document containing a representation to which subsection (2) applies must not be tendered before the conclusion of the examination in chief of the person who made the representation, unless the court gives leave.

66A - Exception: contemporaneous statements about a person’s health etc The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a previous representation made by a person if the representation was a contemporaneous representation about the person’s health, feelings, sensations, intention, knowledge or state of mind. Originally s 72 and usable in relation to remote hearsay as well. Now only first-hand. E.g. “I am afraid that he will kill me.”

Section 67 – Notice to be given Specifies manner of giving notice of reliance upon hearsay evidence pursuant to ss 63 – 65. Section - 68 Objections to tender of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings if maker available Specifies manner of taking objections to use being made of hearsay representations if the maker is available, but will not be called. Discussed earlier

Remote hearsay exceptions (Applicable to all degrees of hearsay)

69 - Exception: business records This section applies to a document that: either: is or forms part of the records belonging to or kept by a person, body or organisation in the course of, or for the purposes of, a business, or at any time was or formed part of such a record, and (b) contains a previous representation made or recorded in the document in the course of, or for the purposes of, the business.

69 - Exception: business records (2) The hearsay rule does not apply to the document (so far as it contains the representation) if the representation was made: by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact, or (b) on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply if the representation: was prepared or obtained for the purpose of conducting, or for or in contemplation of or in connection with, an Australian or overseas proceeding, or (b) was made in connection with an investigation relating or leading to a criminal proceeding.

69 - Exception: business records If: the occurrence of an event of a particular kind is in question, and (b) in the course of a business, a system has been followed of making and keeping a record of the occurrence of all events of that kind, the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence that tends to prove that there is no record kept, in accordance with that system, of the occurrence of the event. (5) For the purposes of this section, a person is taken to have had personal knowledge of a fact if the person’s knowledge of the fact was or might reasonably be supposed to have been based on what the person saw, heard or otherwise perceived (other than a previous representation made by a person about the fact). Notes : 1 Sections 48, 49, 50, 146, 147 and 150 (1) are relevant to the mode of proof, and authentication, of business records. 2 Section 182 of the Commonwealth Act gives section 69 of the Commonwealth Act a wider application in relation to Commonwealth records.

69 - Exception: business records Applies to a “document” that is “business” record – 69(1)(a). Applies to document that contains previous representation – 69(1)(b). The maker of the previous representation had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact. See 69(5) If it complies with the section, the document is admissible under s 69(2) to prove the contents of the representation contained within it.

69 - Exception: business records How are such documents adduced? Sections 48, 49, 50. Sections 146 – 151. Section 69(3): is directed to avoid admissibility of self serving statements where proceedings are likely/probable Facts to be proved in relation to s 69 can be proved by affidavit (or written statement if a public document): s 170

Lancaster v The Queen [2014] VSCA 333 (KOP [7.240]) Lancaster was convicted of sexual assault against 2 children. Each child had a file with the DHS. The files were produced under subpoena and an neuropsychologist gave an expert opinion based on the material in the reports. The trial judge said that the reports were not business records and therefore inadmissible. Also ruled that the expert report was inadmissible because it was based on the inadmissible material. Lancaster appealed. The DHS engaged in the care of each complainant. The entries in the record were made in the course of caring for the complainants. Therefore they parts of the records belonging to the DHS kept for the purpose of caring for the complainants (s 69(1)). Business includes: profession, calling, occupation, undertaking or activity engaged in by the Crown and therefore includes providing social services.

Lancaster v The Queen [2014] VSCA 333 (KOP [7.240]) As to whether the representations in the files were based on innuendo, hearsay or speculation, each one would have to be looked at and measured against s 69(2). To be made ‘directly or indirectly’ does not have to be first or second hand hearsay, can be more remote. Then analysed each representation about which complaint was made.

Thomas v State of NSW [2008] NSWCA 316 (KOP [7.250]) Thomas was convicted of two serious criminal offences. These convictions were set aside by the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal in 1999, due to evidence given by Detective Eastwood to the Royal Commission into the NSW Police Service in 1996 that he had ‘verballed’ Thomas (Detective Eastwood fabricated admissions said to have been made by Thomas in an interview with him, in order to convict Thomas of the criminal offences). Thomas sued the State of NSW tort of malicious prosecution. The trial judge admitted the transcript of evidence from the Royal Commission, that Detective Eastwood had ‘verballed’ Thomas, on the basis that it was an exception to the hearsay rule, amounting to ‘business records’ under s 69(1)-(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The case was dismissed, but NSW also argued that the transcript should not have been admitted.

Thomas v State of NSW [2008] NSWCA 316 (KOP [7.250]) Hodgson JA The Royal Commission was an “Australian Proceeding” - dictionary The transcript was “obtained” “in connection” with the Royal Commission. Therefore, s 69(3) meant that the s 69(2) exception did not apply. The transcript was inadmissible. Allowing this evidence would be contrary to the rationale of s 69: “the likely reliability of entries made in the ordinary course of business or government activities, when there is no reason to suspect ulterior purposes.”

Thomas v State of NSW [2008] NSWCA 316 (KOP [7.250]) Campbell JA As a matter of statutory construction, the words “in connection with” should be construed broadly. It couldn’t have a closer connection than by being given in the course of the proceedings. Therefore, the representation had a connection with an Australian proceeding. It was inadmissible Gyles AJA (Diss) If it had been made in a statement prepared or obtained from Eastwood before the Royal Commission then s 69(3) would apply and it would not be admissible. But as it was a representation made in the course of giving evidence in the proceedings, the evidence was not excluded by s 69(3)(a).

Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36 (KOP [7.260]) Jackson was found unconscious and injured in a drain. Conceded that the Council was only liable if he fell from a vertical retaining wall A document called “Patient Healthcare Record” recorded Found by bystanders – parkland Fall from 1.5 metres onto concrete No other Hx ? Signed by two ambulance officers. Neither gave evidence at hearing Document was admitted pursuant to s 78 as an opinion that he fell from the vertical retaining wall. Appeal to High Court regarding admissibility of the document.

Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36 (KOP [7.260]) S 69(2) - the hearsay rule does not apply if the representation was made: by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact, or on the basis of information directly or indirectly supplied by a person who had or might reasonably be supposed to have had personal knowledge of the asserted fact. Here the asserted fact was that he fell 1.5 metres onto concrete. Section 69(2)(a) did not apply because the ambulance officers (makers of the representation) did not have personal knowledge of a fall of 1.5 metres because it happened before they arrived.

Admissibility - hearsay
Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36 (KOP [7.260]) Section 69(2)(b) did not apply because even if the ambulance officers (makers of the representation) had been told by the bystanders that Jackson fell in that way, the bystanders did not have personal knowledge of a fall and could not reasonably be supposed to have such knowledge, because it happened before they arrived. Not admissible.

Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36 (KOP [7.260]) Is it possible to argue that the asserted fact was an opinion as to how he fell, which the ambulance officers had personal knowledge of?: ‘And the problem may be completely overcome if “asserted fact” in s 69 includes an opinion in relation to a matter of fact. There is authority that it does. But the construction of “asserted fact” to include an opinion in relation to a matter of fact, though convenient, is a little strained. In one sense every person who holds an opinion has personal knowledge of it, and indeed is the only person to have personal knowledge of that person's opinion. But to hold an opinion that the respondent fell in a certain way (or that there is a question about it) is different from having personal knowledge that he fell in that way (or that there is a question about it): that personal knowledge could normally only be derived from seeing or perhaps hearing the event, not by drawing inferences from other circumstances observed some time later. However, it was not argued in this Court that the authorities which state that “asserted fact” includes an opinion in relation to a matter of fact are wrong. It is not necessary further to deal with this point, which the parties did not debate at any stage.’

ACCC v Air New Zealand (No. 1) (2012) 207 FCR 448 (KOP [7.270]) Air NZ objected to tender of minutes of meetings on the basis that they did not fall within s 69. It said that the entities were not businesses and the fact that Cathay Pacific had their minutes did not mean that those minutes formed part of the records kept by Cathay Pacific. It also argued that statements in the minutes like: ‘it is agreed that…’ were inadmissible opinions not saved by s 69. Perram J held that an opinion as to the existence of a fact falls within the definition of an ‘asserted fact’ (s 69(2)) Although in Lithgow the High Court said that this was “a little strained”, this was not binding obiter dicta and therefore he did not follow this. Therefore, according to Perram J, ‘asserted fact’ at least applies to lay opinions.

ACCC v Air New Zealand (No. 1) (2012) 207 FCR 448 (KOP [7.270]) ‘Here the legislation was always intended as a beneficial reform. If ‘asserted fact’ does not extend at least to lay opinion as defined in s 78 then an important, reliable and common form of business record will be inadmissible. For example, a building site log recording that the site is ‘slippery due to rain’; a hotel incident report that a patron was ‘drunk’; a police pocket note that a person was ‘angry’ and so on.’ [65] As to the application of s 78. Perram J adopted the position in Lithgow City Council and in applying s 78 to the minutes held that: ‘On the s 78(a) question, I infer that the author of each minute was present, saw a number of people speak and finally assent to an agreed position. On the s 78(b) question…..in my opinion, the distillation of the events at a meeting leading to agreement are so numerous and evanescent that it would be unrealistic either to require an explication of them in a minute of the relevant meeting or in the testimony of a witness giving evidence as to what happened at the meeting.’ [71], [72]

Vitali v Stachnik [2001] NSWSC 303* 2 documents setting out information of payments due to freelance nurses who services were arranged by a company of which the sole director was the defendant. Defendant sought to adduce them and relied upon s 69. Both were created by an employee at time who was involved in accounting work - 69(2) proved. As to s 69(3)(a) – the documents were created for the company. A previous decision said that the person entitled to the document had to be a party to the proceedings for which they are created, but Odgers said that this was surprising, and the company was in fact the alter ego of the defendant, so this was not an obstacle to the operation of 69(3)(a)

Vitali v Stachnik [2001] NSWSC 303* The first document was prepared after the proceedings commenced and recognised as being relevant to and potentially playing a part in the litigation. Therefore it was prepared in anticipation or connection with the proceedings. Accordingly s 69(3)(a) applied and the document was inadmissible. The second document was created at a time when the proceedings could not have been contemplated. Therefore s 69(3)(a) does not apply and the document was admitted.

70 - Exception: contents of tags, labels and writing (not assessed) The hearsay rule does not apply to a tag or label attached to, or writing placed on, an object (including a document) if the tag or label or writing may reasonably be supposed to have been so attached or placed: in the course of a business, and for the purpose of describing or stating the identity, nature, ownership, destination, origin or weight of the object, or of the contents (if any) of the object. Note : The Commonwealth Act has an additional subsection. It provides that the exception does not apply to Customs and Excise prosecutions. Section 5 of the Commonwealth Act extends the application of that subsection to proceedings in all Australian courts.

71 - Exception: electronic communications (not assessed) The hearsay rule does not apply to a representation contained in a document recording an electronic communication so far as the representation is a representation as to: the identity of the person from whom or on whose behalf the communication was sent, or the date on which or the time at which the communication was sent, or (c) the destination of the communication or the identity of the person to whom the communication was addressed. Notes : 1 Division 3 of Part 4.3 contains presumptions about electronic communications. 2 Section 182 of the Commonwealth Act gives section 71 of the Commonwealth Act a wider application in relation to Commonwealth records. 3 "Electronic communication" is defined in the Dictionary.

72 - Exception: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs (not assessed) The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of a representation about the existence or non-existence, or the content, of the traditional laws and customs of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander group.

73 - Exception: reputation as to relationships and age (not assessed) The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of reputation concerning: (a) whether a person was, at a particular time or at any time, a married person, or (b) whether a man and a woman cohabiting at a particular time were married to each other at that time, or (c) a person’s age, or (d) family history or a family relationship. (2) In a criminal proceeding, subsection (1) does not apply to evidence adduced by a defendant unless: (a) it tends to contradict evidence of a kind referred to in subsection (1) that has been admitted, or the defendant has given reasonable notice in writing to each other party of the defendant’s intention to adduce the evidence. (3) In a criminal proceeding, subsection (1) does not apply to evidence adduced by the prosecutor unless it tends to contradict evidence of a kind referred to in subsection (1) that has been admitted.

73 - Exception: reputation as to relationships and age (not assessed) There is conflicting authority on what is required for a “reputation”: In Ceedive Pty Ltd v May [2004] NSWSC 33, Levine J took a broad view and said that all that was required was that the witness knowledge was based on a conversation with one person. But in Cetkovic v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 329 the Court discussed that to be a reputation, “a belief would need to be held by more than one person… It may be that a belief would need to be held by a considerably more than one person… but it is unnecessary to explore that matter.”

74 - Exception: reputation of public or general rights (not assessed) The hearsay rule does not apply to evidence of reputation concerning the existence, nature or extent of a public or general right. In a criminal proceeding, subsection (1) does not apply to evidence adduced by the prosecutor unless it tends to contradict evidence of a kind referred to in subsection (1) that has been admitted. A public right is one that affects the community in general. A general right is one that affects a particular class – such as the rights of a particular class of aborigines to a particular piece of land.

74 - Exception: reputation of public or general rights (not assessed) Public Right - examples: A claim to tolls on a public highway. A right of ferry. The right to treat part of a fiver bank as a public landing place. General Right - examples: This affects a particular class of people such as the inhabitants of a particular district, the tenants of a manor, or the owners of certain plots of land. A right of common Customary manorial rights The rights of corporations A custom of mining in a particular district

75 - Exception: interlocutory proceedings (not assessed) In an interlocutory proceeding, the hearsay rule does not apply to evidence if the party who adduces it also adduces evidence of its source. This means identification of a particular source who is reasonably likely to have knowledge of the relevant fact. This does not necessarily require identification of the “ultimate source” of the information.

Problem 1: A dispute has arisen as to Jack and Trevor entered a contract of sale. Trevor calls Horace to testify: I was at Jack’s place on the day in question, when Trevor dropped in. I heard a conversation between them. Jack said to Trevor, ‘I’ll sell you this old picture for $250’. Trevor said, ‘Excellent. I’ll take it. I’ll go and get some cash.’ After Trevor left, Sam dropped in. Sam said to Jack, ‘I’ll give you $1000 for this old picture’. Jack said ‘done’. I was disgusted and walked out. 3. Later Jack said to me, ‘I know I had an agreement with Trevor, but I couldn’t turn down an extra $750. I need the money.’ Is any of this evidence hearsay? Would it be admissible?

Problem 2: Steven has been charged with the murder of Mo. Steven admits stabbing Mo but claims provocation. He testifies that that Mo told him that he (Mo) had had sex with Steven’s wife, and that she appeared to enjoy it much more than he did. She told him that Steven just couldn’t satisfy her any more. Steven says that he picked up a knife from Mo’s kitchen bench and stabbed him. This evidence is consistent with what he told police in interview, which was led as part of the prosecution case. Another prosecution witness, Lew, testifies that he was walking past Mo’s place when Mo came out into the front yard with blood dripping down his front. Mo says: ‘Steven stabbed me. He found out I was having an affair with his wife and he came around with a knife to kill me.’ Is this evidence hearsay?

LAW OF EVIDENCE LPAB – Summer 2016/2017 Week 6.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "LAW OF EVIDENCE LPAB – Summer 2016/2017 Week 6."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

LAW OF EVIDENCE LPAB – Summer 2016/2017 Week 6.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "LAW OF EVIDENCE LPAB – Summer 2016/2017 Week 6."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback