RELEVANCE (topic one)

R v BUCHANAN
Facts: A was convicted with manslaughter, killing someone while driving. At the trial, a witness gave evidence that A had been drinking all day and that 30 mins before the incident, the A had been driving negligently. Was this relevant?
Held: of high relevance, as the consumption of alcohol so close to the incident made it more likely that the A did in fact commit the crime.

R v HORATH
Facts: A charged with culpable driving causing death. Witness saw the guy overtaking around bends and speeding 45 mins earlier and 50 kms away. Was this evidence relevant?
Held: no, for it to be relevant, there must’ve been a connecting link between what the witness saw and the state of the A at the time of the incident (re: Buchanan’s case, where alcohol linked the prior behaviour to the incident)

R v STEPHENSON
Facts: a fiat with four people in it make a turn at an intersection, where the A drove through and collided with the fiat, killing three of the occupants. It was never determined who was driving. D wanted to ask a medical witness if any of the people in the car had alcohol in their blood at time of accident. A was convicted and appealed.
Held: even if alcohol was present in the blood of the guys, it was never determined who was driving and therefore any medical evidence would be irrelevant.

CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

WILSON v R
Facts: A was charged with the murder of his wife, who died from a gunshot blast to the head. A argued that the shotgun had discharged accidentally – maybe the dog stood on the trigger. P lead evidence that showed that the two had two arguments, where the deceased said “I know you want to kill me for my money”, which was evidence as to motive. Was this evidence relevant?
Held: Barwick CJ noted that transient quarrels should not be admitted since it does not support motive. However, consistent quarrels such as in the current case may go to motive.

HEARSAY EVIDENCE

SUBRAMANIAM v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [1956] 1 WLR 965
facts: s was found in possession of ammunition, contrary to relevant legislation operating at the time. s argued that he had been captured by terrorists and was forced to hold onto the ammo in fear of being killed, raising the defence of duress. at the trial of first instance, it was held that his evidence (that he was captured etc.) was hearsay and s was convicted. he appealled.
held: the statement made by s re: being captured was not hearsay evidence for the following reasons:
a) the statement did not relate to the truth of the assertion, but rather simply that the assertion was made;
b)it did not matter if it was true that the terrorists were going to kill him, it was important however in showing that the statement made to s was enough to induce a belief that he was going to be killed, raising the defence of duress.

MYERS v DPP [1965] AC 1001
facts: A was charged with a conspiracy that involved selling stolen cars. in the old days, cars were sold with log books, and each subsequent sale would be recorded in the log book. the log book also had info regarding the car's chassis number, engine number, and block number; hence, the log book coudl establish ownership of the car. A bought wrecked cars WITH log books, then went out and stole cars of the same make and model and then sold them to innocent purchasers.
at the trial, the man responsible for recording engine/chassis/block numbers gave evidence that while the engine and chassis number corresponded with each other, the block number was different. he provided evidence in the way of photogrpahs of the records taken down when the cars were being assembled.
held: it was hearsay evidence for the following reason/s:
a) its probative value would only be relevent if the jury (or judge) took the contents of the photographs to be true.
hence: if the document is being used to establish the truth of the assertion made in the document, then it is classified as hearsay (documentary hearsay).
main point: since hearsay evidence is nearly always an issue in cases, if, from a logical analysis, the evidence is hearsay, then it is inadmissible. reasons for this approach are that:
a) when looking at hearsay, there must be clarity
b) there must be logical reasoning
c) very limited exceptions

RATTEN v THE QUEEN [1972] AC 378
facts: A was charged with the murder of his wife via shotgun to the head. he argued that the gun had discharged accidentally while he was cleaning it. the couple lived in a rural area and telephone calls made went through a telephonist. A said that no phone calls were made at the time of the shooting (between 1:12 and 1:20). a telephonist however, confirmed that there had been an outgoing call from the house at the relevant time, but also stated that the woman (the deceased) sounded frantic and asked to "get the police please." was this hearsay evidence?
held: a request (ie. to call the police) does not tend to prove anything at all. while it may allow implications to be drawn, the statement itself does not seek to convey any specific information.

WALTON v R (1989) 84 ALR 59; 63 ALJR 226
facts: A was accused of murdering his wife. P's case was that A arranged for his wife to meet him in the town square where he later took her to another place and killed her. it was established that the wife had in fact gone to the town square, but it had to be proven that she went pursuant to her husband's arrangement.
at the trial, witnesses gave evidence that the wife had told them she was going to meet her husband. furthermore, evidence was given that the wife was having a phone conversation and when her daughter asked who it was, she replied "daddy". the daughter then took the phone and referred to the guy on the other end as "daddy" also. were either of these pieces of evidence hearsay?
held: an intention to do something (ie. meet her husband) is classified as original evidence, and not hearsay and is therefore admissible. however, the phone conversation is clearly hearsay - how can one be sure that it was the accused on the phone? it could have been anyone that the wife and daughter were calling "daddy". it only has relevence if the guy was in fact the accused.

R v BENZ (1989) 168 CLR 110
facts: a mother and daughter were charged with the murder of the mother's de facto partner. his body was found down-stream of a river and there was a footbridge near by. P's case was that the two had killed the guy then dumped his body over the bridge. a witness gave evidence that he saw two women on the bridge at the relevent time, and went over to ask if they were ok. the younger woman replied "my mother is feeling sick." was this hearsay?
held: the evidence of the witness proves that there was a mother and daughter on the bridge at the relevent time, but it does not prove that it was the accused. furthermore, the evidence would only be relevent if the statements made to the witness were in fact taken to be true (that they were mother and daughter). hence, hearsay evidence.