Director of Public Prosecutions v Finnegan

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania against the acquittal of the respondents on a charge of assault. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of a prior inconsistent statement made by a Crown witness, and the Crown's ability to cross-examine its own witness to tender that statement as evidence of its truth.

The Full Court was required to determine whether the trial judge erred in refusing to permit the Crown to cross-examine its own witness regarding a prior inconsistent statement. Specifically, the court had to consider the factors relevant to the exercise of the trial judge's discretion in such circumstances, and whether the refusal to allow cross-examination prevented the Crown from satisfying the requirements to tender the prior inconsistent statement as evidence of the truth of its contents.

The Full Court reasoned that the trial judge had misapplied the principles governing the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements. It held that the Crown should have been permitted to cross-examine its witness, as the prior statement was relevant to the witness's credibility and potentially to the truth of its contents, provided the necessary conditions for its admission were met. The court emphasised that the purpose of allowing cross-examination in these circumstances is not solely to impeach credibility but also, where appropriate, to adduce substantive evidence.

Consequently, the Full Court granted the appellant leave to appeal, quashed the acquittal of each respondent on the charge of assault, and ordered that each respondent be retried on that charge.