Scam alert – fraudulent email address ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’

The Court is aware of a scam involving the use of a fraudulent email address purporting to be an official High Court email address – ‘subpoena@hcourt.gov.au’ 

This email address is not associated with, authorised by, or operated by the Court. 

Recipients of emails from this account should exercise caution and should not click on links, open attachments or provide personal or financial information. 

Steven Moore (a pseudonym) v The King

[2024] HCA 30
Judgment date
Case number
M23/2024
Before
Gageler CJ, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Beech-Jones JJ
Catchwords

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.

Files
30.docx (85.35 KB)
30.pdf (213.57 KB)