Director of Public Prosecutions v Hills (Ruling No 6)

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Hills, the respondent, the dispute was centred around a trial for attempted murder and kidnapping. The proceedings took place in the County Court of Victoria. The crux of the case involved the admissibility of evidence concerning the accused's prior criminal conduct, particularly when the intended cross-examination related to a co-accused's previous criminal behaviour. This raised questions about the relevance of such evidence and whether it could be admitted under the tendency evidence provisions of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the cross-examination of a witness regarding the prior criminal conduct of the co-accused was relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence fell within the exceptions provided by sections 97 and 135 of the Act. The respondent's counsel argued that the evidence was relevant to rebut an inference that might be drawn from the co-accused's silence during the trial. The prosecution contended that the evidence was not relevant and, if relevant, it should be excluded under the tendency evidence provisions because its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The County Court concluded that the evidence in question was not relevant for the purposes of section 97 of the Evidence Act. Consequently, the court held that the evidence did not meet the threshold for admissibility under section 135. The court reasoned that the evidence did not directly connect the accused to the alleged crimes and thus did not serve to rebut any specific inference that could be drawn from the co-accused's silence. Therefore, the trial proceeded without the contested evidence being admitted.

As a result of the court's ruling, the trial continued without the contested cross-examination evidence being presented to the jury. The court did not make any specific orders beyond ruling on the admissibility of the evidence, leaving the trial to progress based on the evidence that was deemed admissible under the Evidence Act.