Evidence – Interlocutory appeal – Admissibility – Hearsay evidence – Judicial discretion to exclude evidence – Standard of appellate review – Where s 65 of Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) applied in criminal proceeding if person who made previous representation was not available to give evidence about asserted fact – Where appellant due to stand trial for seven offences committed against one complainant – Where complainant passed away in unrelated circumstances – Where respondent notified appellant of intention to adduce evidence of previous representations made by complainant – Where trial judge ruled evidence satisfied s 65 and refused to exclude evidence of representations under s 137 of Evidence Act – Whether Court of Appeal required to apply principles in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 or "correctness" standard in reviewing trial judge's decision under s 137 of Evidence Act – Whether Court of Appeal erred in assessing danger of unfair prejudice that would result from admission of evidence of representations.
Words and phrases – "appellate court", "correctness standard", "discretionary decision", "evidence", "hearsay", "hearsay rule", "interlocutory", "not available", "probative value", "representation", "standard of review", "unfair prejudice".
Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) – ss 295, 296, 297, 300.
Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) – ss 59, 65, 67, 137.
Judgment date
Case number
M23/2024
Before
Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords