NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Brooks (No 3) [2017] NSWSC 261 Hearing dates: 15-16 March 2017 Date of orders: 16 March 2017 Decision date: 16 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Hamill J Decision: The hearsay evidence is admissible. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidentiary ruling – hearsay – where previous representation made by alleged victim – statement by victim to bouncer immediately after stabbing – where victim called to give evidence – where maker not asked by either counsel about conversation – whether creates unfair prejudice – Evidence Act does not require evidence of previous representation to be given by maker of representation – whether operation of hearsay provisions creates unfairness – evidence allowed Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: [RESTRICTED JUDGMENT] [2016] NSWCCA 92 Breen v The Queen (1976) 180 CLR 233; [1976] HCA 15 Griffin v The Queen [2011] VSCA 304 Grills v The Queen [1996] HCA Trans 273, (1996) 70 ALJR 905 IMM v The Queen [2016] HCA 14 R v MSK and MAK (2004) 61 NSWLR 204; [2004] NSWCCA 308 Singh v The Queen [2011] VSCA 263 Texts Cited: Odgers Uniform Evidence Law (11th Edition) [2014] Odgers Uniform Evidence Law (12th Edition) [2016] Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina Bradley Brooks Representation: Counsel: Huw Baker (Crown) Andrew Boe (B Brooks)
Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions Younes + Espiner Lawyers (B Brooks) File Number(s): 2015/00101058
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate