Hartnett v Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes (No 5)

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants, the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Wilcannia-Forbes, alleging sexual abuse by a priest during her childhood. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was permitted to adduce certain evidence in reply, despite the scope of the proposed evidence being broader than the evidence it sought to address. Specifically, the plaintiff sought to adduce evidence of the defendant's character for sexual impropriety.

The court considered whether the credibility rule, which permits evidence to be adduced in reply if it is relevant to the credibility of a witness, applied in this situation. The court held that the proposed evidence was not admissible as it was broader than the evidence it sought to address and was not relevant for a non-hearsay purpose. The court found that the evidence was not relevant to the plaintiff's credibility or any other issue in the case, and its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The court also held that the evidence was not relevant for a non-hearsay purpose as it did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court found that the evidence was not admissible as it was not necessary in the interests of justice to admit it. The court further found that the evidence was not relevant to any matter in issue between the parties and was not capable of affecting the outcome of the case. The court rejected the plaintiff's submission that the evidence was relevant to establish a pattern of behaviour on the part of the defendant.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's application to adduce the proposed evidence. The court found that the evidence was not admissible and that its probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court held that the evidence was not relevant for a non-hearsay purpose and that it did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court concluded that the evidence was not necessary in the interests of justice to admit it and that it was not relevant to any matter in issue between the parties. The court further found that the evidence was not capable of affecting the outcome of the case. The plaintiff's application to adduce the proposed evidence was dismissed.