Law of Evidence Case Studies

Law of Evidence CASE STUDIES
Law of Evidence
Case studies

Law of Evidence CASE STUDIES
Table of Contents
Issue.................................................................................................................................................2
Rule..................................................................................................................................................2
Application and Analysis.................................................................................................................2
Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................7
BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................9

Law of Evidence CASE STUDIES
Issue
Whether R and M's conviction was based on wrongly admitted evidence by the prosecution, and
whether testimony by the police in reading statements of L is admissible under cross-
examination and whether the prosecution can adduce
Rule
For the admissibility of evidence, the basic underlying principle is the relevancy of it. On the
hand, the rule which is made applicable against hearsay is for prohibiting the witnesses so that
they do not repeat out of court statements which are not made by them but by others for
establishing the truth comprising those statements. Again, the conducts of the person or the
comments made by someone who is not an witness, was lacking the intention to assert facts for
tendering the proof, cannot be maintained as admissible as the hearsay, although there are
exceptions.
Application and Analysis
In the present facts of the case, Zolt (Z) was found unconscious by two ambulance workers, Tim
(TI) and Todd (TO) was admitted to the hospital, with large bruises and blood clots. No
witnesses of assault were found. Z regained consciousness with no memory of the assault.
Missing sticky- taped notes in a wallet made Z lodge a formal complaint with police. Police
inquired in local shops. Lawrence (L) a shift worker informed police about those taped notes,
from two persons who purchased beer slabs and described them vaguely and identified one is
having New Zealand accent while the other was having an Asian accent. From police records, L
identified 2 people from the same region named as Morgho (M) and Ruprecht (R), both having

Law of Evidence CASE STUDIES
similar accents as mentioned by L. During trial L could not be traced, and the police testified
herself and read statements of L. Prosecution witnessed bar staff and regular customers of the
Tavern, and all of them identified R and M to be loitering that area. Both R and M have a history
of criminal conduct. Searching flat of R and M revealed beer cans from L's shop. M and R were
convicted of assault and robbery. For the admissibility of evidence the basic underlying principle
is the relevancy of it, was held in case of Wilson v R (1970)1. On the hand, the rule which is
made applicable against hearsay is for prohibiting the witnesses so that they do not repeat out of
court statements which are not made by them but by others for establishing the truth comprising
those statements, was determined in cases of Subramanium v Public Prosecutor (1956)2, Myers v
Director of Public Prosecutions (1965)3, Leith McDonald Ratten v The Queen (1972)4, King
Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne [2015]5, and also in case of Kessing v R [2008]6. Again, the
conducts of the person or the statements made by someone who is not a witness, was lacking the
intention to assert facts for tendering the proof, cannot be maintained as admissible as the
hearsay was held in cases of Walton v The Queen (1989)7, R v Benz (1989)8, Pollitt v R (1992)9,
Regina (Common Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 19] [2008]10 and in China v Presbyterian
Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 6) [2012] 11, the case was rejected only because the evidence
is implied hearsay, although there are exceptions, Sio v R [2015]12, Sio v The Queen [2016]13. So,
1 Wilson v R (1970) 44 ALJR 221
2 Subramanium v Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 WLR 965 (PC)
3 Myers v Director of Public Prosecutions (1965) AC 1001
4 Leith McDonald Ratten v The Queen (1972) AC 378
5 King Developments Pty Ltd v Mayne [2015] QCAT 173
6 Kessing v R [2008] NSWCCA 310
7 Walton v The Queen (1989) 166 CLR 283
8 R v Benz (1989) 168 CLR 110
9 Pollitt v R (1992) 66 ALJR 613
10 Regina (Common Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 19] [2008] NSWSC 1441
11 China v Presbyterian Church (NSW) Property Trust (No. 6) [2012] NSWSC 1476
12 Sio v R [2015] NSWCCA 42
13 Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32