Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hunter (No 13) [2014] NSWSC 1156 Hearing dates: 16 July 2014 Decision date: 16 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Button J Decision: The Crown is granted leave to have the witness use voir dire exhibit BB in an attempt to revive his memory in the witness box. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - witness - examination in chief - whether leave should be granted for a witness to revive his memory by reference to a document - evidence highly probative Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 32, 55, 137, 192 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Regina Paul Andrew Hunter Representation: Counsel: M Cinque (Crown) D Carroll (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Shiranica Danieli Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2011/397367 ex tempore Judgment 1The Crown has made an application pursuant to s 32 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to permit the witness, Mr Gove Junior, to attempt to revive his memory in the witness box by way of reference to a document, namely Crown voir dire exhibit BB. 2I have considered the provisions of s 32 and, in particular, s 32(2)(b)(i)(ii). I have also considered the aspects that need to be taken into account with regard to a grant of leave by way of s 192 of the Evidence Act. Without running through each of those seriatim, I consider that those factors as a whole argue in favour of the application being granted. 3Furthermore, I regard the evidence of what the accused allegedly said in Livingston Avenue on the afternoon of 20 June 2011, in particular with regard to alleged threats of retaliations, as highly probative. 4In the circumstances, I do not see any basis upon which, by way of any discretion, the procedure pursuant to s 32 should not be permitted. 5In short, having taken into account ss 32, 55, 137, and 192 of the Evidence Act, I propose to grant the Crown leave to have the witness use voir dire exhibit BB in an attempt to revive his memory in the witness box. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 21 August 2014