DPP v Madina

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Madina, the applicant, along with Douglas, was charged with multiple offences including armed robbery, false imprisonment and related charges. The alleged crimes involved two armed robberies of Armaguard vans, one in 1994 and the other in 2006. The applicants sought an interlocutory appeal against the trial judge's ruling that hearsay representations made by a deceased accomplice, which the prosecution intended to rely upon, were inadmissible. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the hearsay representations were inadmissible under the Evidence Act 2008. The applicants argued that the representations were made in circumstances that made it likely they were reliable and that their probative value outweighed any danger of unfair prejudice to the accused. They also contended that the jury could be directed to mitigate any potential prejudice.

The court examined the applicable provisions of the Evidence Act 2008, including sections 59, 62, 65(2)(c), and 137, which deal with the admissibility of hearsay evidence. The court noted the principles established in Sio v The Queen and Asling v The Queen, which emphasise the importance of balancing the probative value of evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice. The court held that the trial judge was correct in finding that the representations were inadmissible, as they did not fall within an exception to the hearsay rule, and the danger of unfair prejudice to the applicants could not be adequately mitigated by jury directions. Consequently, the court refused leave to appeal, affirming the trial judge's decision.