The Queen v G H [2000] FCA 1618

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

The Queen v GH [2000] FCA 1618

EVIDENCE – admissibility – where accused charged with conspiring to pervert the course of justice and evidence of statements attributed to him sought to be admitted as part of commission of the offence – whether statements admissible pursuant to s 84 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - whether statements are admissions within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) - whether statements are representations "adverse to the person's interest in the outcome of the proceeding."

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 84 Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 30A R v Duff (unreported, NSWCA, 17 September 1998)– discussed R v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426 – discussed R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442 – discussed Ajit Singh Sat-Bhambra (1989) 88 Cr App R 55 – cited R v Clarke; ex parte AG [1999] QCA 428 – cited The Queen v Veneman and Leigh [1970] SASR 506 – cited Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 208 – cited R v Fernando (1999) NSWCCA 66 – referred to Edmunds v Edmunds and Ayscough [1935] VLR 177 - cited Papaskomas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 - cited

THE QUEEN v GH A1 OF 1999 SPENDER, MILES and MADGWICK JJ CANBERRA 13 NOVEMBER 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY A1 OF 1999

BETWEEN: THE QUEEN

Appellant

AND: GH

Respondent

JUDGES: SPENDER, MILES and MADGWICK JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 13 NOVEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE: CANBERRA

THE COURT DETERMINES THAT:

The questions submitted to the Court for its determination under s 30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) should be answered as follows:

Question 1: Were the statements attributed to the accused in the recorded conversations "admissions" within the meaning of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)?

Answer: No.