Tendency, relevance and the legacy of the common law

The Supreme Court has recently released a number of rulings in an attempted murder trial from last year - DPP v Hills, NC, Cooper and RAC. Ruling No 6 concerns the operation of the UEA and warrants close consideration. The case alleged by the prosecution was that a group of four people went to the vicitm's house, abducted her, drove her to the Maribyrnong River and attempted to drown her. They desisted when they believed that another car was approaching. The Crown case relied in part on the evidence of one co-offender, Meulenbrock, who agreed to give evidence against the other co-offenders.

The privileged position of journalists

At the end of March, the Federal Parliament finally passed amendments to the Commonwealth Evidence Act to create what have often been called journalist shield laws. This may, however, be a misleading description if the privilege, as it arguably exists to protect sources and promote the flow of information rather than to protect journalists.

As readers would be well aware, the Commonwealth amendments will only apply in proceedings under the Commonwealth evidence laws. So far, I haven't heard whether New South Wales or Tasmania plan to follow suit. However, last Friday, The Australian ran a story that Victoria will not adopt the same provisions, and will instead adopt slightly different shield laws.

Admissibility of a record of interview

Imagine the following scenario. Mr Smith is charged with aggravated burglary. He is interviewed by police and denies involvement in the offence. In the course of the interview, he makes some exculpatory statements that suggest that other police witnesses may have a motive to lie. Is this interview admissible in the trial? Even if it is admissible, is the prosecution obliged to tender it?

Adjournments and alternatives

Four days before a scheduled hearing to give evidence as primary prosecution witness in a road rage incident, Ms Venner was admitted to hospital for emergency surgery. Dutifully, she notified the informant that she would not be available, who then, one day before the hearing, notified the defendant that the police would apply for an adjournment and, in the alternative, would apply under s65 of the Evidence Act for the court to receive her police statement. These are the facts underlying DPP v Easwaralingam.

Surprisingly in those circumstances, the defendant opposed both applications, the Magistrate knocking back the adjournment application because