Lee v The Queen

In *Lee v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Nathan Lee against his conviction for assault with intent to rob. The prosecution's case relied, in part, on a written statement made by a witness, Romeo George Calin, which contained an alleged confession by the appellant. The central dispute concerned the admissibility of this statement under the hearsay provisions of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW).

The legal issues before the High Court were whether section 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) permitted a previous representation, which was itself a report of what another person said, to be admitted as proof of the truth of what was reportedly said. Specifically, the Court had to determine if Mr Calin's written statement, which recounted words allegedly spoken by the appellant, could be used to prove that the appellant had indeed made those statements and, by extension, that he had committed the robbery.

The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial. The Court reasoned that section 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW) allows hearsay evidence to be admitted if it is relevant for a purpose other than proving the truth of the asserted fact. However, it does not permit a statement that is itself hearsay (a report of what someone else said) to be admitted to prove the truth of the original, unrepresented assertion. In this case, Mr Calin's statement was a previous representation, and its admission to prove the truth of the appellant's alleged confession would contravene the hearsay rule, as section 60 was not intended to override the hearsay rule in such circumstances.