Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 5) [2005] FCA 281

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (No 5) [2005] FCA 281 JOHNNY JANGO and Ors v NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA and Ors NTD 6023 of 1998 SACKVILLE J SYDNEY 21 MARCH 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY NTD 6023 of 1998

BETWEEN: JOHNNY JANGO AND OTHERS

APPLICANTS

AND: NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

FIRST RESPONDENT

GPT MANAGEMENT LIMITED

SECOND RESPONDENT

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

THIRD RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SACKVILLE J

DATE: 21 MARCH 2005

PLACE: SYDNEY

RULING ON EVIDENCE 1 The parties have sought rulings on the admissibility of certain documents that have been tendered by the Commonwealth. I have been asked to address the question of admissibility on the papers. As the submissions are very brief, my reasons will also be brief.

Document 5 2 This document is an extract from Professor Tonkinson's field notes of 19 June 1996 at Mutitjulu, recording a conversation with Dr Willis. The tender is made pursuant to s 43 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ('Evidence Act'), which is as follows: '(1) A witness may be cross-examined about a prior inconsistent statement alleged to have been made by the witness whether or not: (a) complete particulars of the statement have been given to the witness; or (b) a document containing a record of the statement has been shown to the witness. (2) If, in cross-examination, a witness does not admit that he or she has made a prior inconsistent statement, the cross-examiner is not to adduce evidence of the statement otherwise than from the witness unless, in the cross-examination, the cross-examiner: (a) informed the witness of enough of the circumstances of the making of the statement to enable the witness to identify the statement; and (b) drew the witness's attention to so much of the statement as is inconsistent with the witness's evidence. (3) For the purpose of adducing evidence of the statement, a party may re-open the party's case.' 3 Dr Willis' statement, as recorded by Professor Tonkinson, that there were no sites within the town area, is said to be inconsistent with his evidence. It is not entirely clear which portion of Dr Willis' evidence is said to be inconsistent with the recorded statement. I assume, however, that it is his evidence (at T2912) that there were a whole range of places within the town area where people went for food. 4 If that is the inconsistency alleged, I do not think that it is made out. The conversation with Professor Tonkinson related to 'sites'. I do not interpret Dr Willis, in the comments recorded by Professor Tonkinson, as saying anything necessarily inconsistent with his observations in the transcript. The tender of Document 5 should be rejected.