Adam v The Queen

The case of *Adam v The Queen* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia following a conviction for murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Gilbert Adam, was found guilty of murder, while his brother was acquitted of murder but convicted of maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements made by a prosecution witness, Thaier Sako, to the police. The Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales had previously dismissed the appellant's appeal against his conviction.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of Thaier Sako's prior inconsistent statements to the police as evidence of the truth of their contents, and whether the trial judge erred in granting the prosecution leave to cross-examine its own witness, Thaier Sako, pursuant to s 38 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). The appellant argued that the admission of these statements was improper.

The High Court reasoned that once leave was granted for the prosecution to cross-examine Thaier Sako about his prior inconsistent statements, the evidence of those statements was admissible as evidence of the truth of their contents. The Court noted that the prior inconsistent statements were relevant not only to the witness's credibility but also to other issues in the case. Consequently, the credibility rule, which generally limits the use of prior inconsistent statements to credibility, was not engaged. The Court further held that the evidence fell within the exception to the hearsay rule provided by s 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW), making it admissible as evidence of the truth of the representations contained within the statements.

The High Court concluded that the trial judge's evidentiary rulings were not attended by error and that the Court of Criminal Appeal had correctly upheld those rulings. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.