R v Hawkins (No 9) [2020] NSWSC 1930

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hawkins (No 9) [2020] NSWSC 1930 Hearing dates: 14 and 15 October 2020 Date of orders: 14 and 15 October 2020 Decision date: 15 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Lonergan J Decision: Leave pursuant to s 108 of the Evidence Act to adduce evidence of prior statements of Ms Lethbridge on the basis that they are prior consistent statements is refused. Catchwords: EVIDENCE — credibility evidence — prior consistent statement — Crown application to adduce evidence of prior consistent statements of witness to a shooting — accused charged with murder — self-defence raised — statements made to police — whether s 108(3) of the Evidence Act is engaged — question of whether leave should be granted — statements are not prior consistent statements — leave refused Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Daniel Mark Hawkins (Accused) Representation: Counsel: G Turner (Crown) N Steel (Accused)

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown) Zhai & Associates Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2018/378301 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. On day 17 of the trial, the Crown sought leave under s 108 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to adduce evidence of what it asserted were prior consistent statements of a witness to the shooting of the deceased Mr Denniss, Taylah Lethbridge. She gave evidence at the trial to the effect that she and Mr Denniss had their arms around each other at the time she says she saw the accused point the gun and fire at Mr Denniss. 2. The evidence is important because it has the potential to undermine the defence case that Mr Denniss came "flying" out of the shed with a weapon in his hand, a home-made mace, that the accused thought was a gun. 3. The statements sought to be led were things said by Ms Lethbridge to police very shortly after Mr Denniss was shot dead, recorded on the body-worn cameras of two early responding police officers. 4. Counsel for the accused Mr Steel opposed leave. First, because the portions relied upon are not prior consistent statements and cannot be viewed as such and so s 108 is not engaged at all and second, even if they were, leave should not be given, bearing in mind the requirements of s 108(3). 5. After receiving written submissions and oral argument, I refused leave. These are my reasons.