Attorney-General (NSW) v Jackson [1906] HCA 90

730 HIGH COURT

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES j

AND

MARGARET JACKSON . ; 5 . + RESPoN D

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES.

H.C. of A. Bvidence—Deposition of witness in preliminary investigation—Admissibility 1906. after death of witness—Portion of statement omitted—Crimes Act (N.S ~~ (No. 40 of 1900), secs. 406, 409—Justices Act (N.S.W.), (No. 27 of

Sypvey, sec, 36, Sched. 2 (Ft).

d 10 i ' a 5 5 April 10, 115 pretice Appeal by Orown tn criminal esee--Special asa gra

Supreme Court—Grounds open on case stated—Prisoner no longer in Motion to rescind speciai leave.

Griffith C J., pranon ats Sec. 409, sub-sec. (1), of the Crimes Act 1900 provides that a dep purporting to be signed by the justice by or before whom it purports been taken may be read in evidence in the prosecution at the accused person upon proof on oath that the witness is dead, and deposition was taken in the presence of the accused, and that the a his attorney or counsel had a full opportunity of cross-examining the unless it is proved that the deposition was not in fact signed by purporting to sign it. Sub-sec. (3) provides that depositions preliminary or other investigation of any charge of felony or shall be admissible in evidence on the trial of the accused for an} although of a higher or different nature, if they would be admissible on trial for the offence in respect of which they were taken,

Held, that a deposition taken in the form prescribed by the Justices Ac as to which the requirements of sec. 409 were complied with, was not inadmissible by reason of the omission from the deposition of o iments made by the witness during the examination. Such an omi if the words omitted subsequently turn out to be material, afford comment on the value of the deposition as evidence, but it in no way its admissibility. p