R v Edwards (No 2)

The appellant was charged with the murder of a woman who had been found deceased at her home. The deceased had made representations to friends via text and Facebook messages and these representations were to be tendered as evidence at the trial. The appellant objected to the admissibility of some of the representations on the basis that they were not proximate in time to the alleged offence. The appellant also objected to the admissibility of some of the witness statements on the basis that they were remote in time, lacked specificity, and were unreliable. The court was required to decide whether the representations and witness statements were admissible under the first-hand hearsay exceptions and, if so, whether the court should exercise its discretion to admit them in relation to specific topics.

The court held that the representations were admissible under the first-hand hearsay exceptions. The court noted that the deceased's representations were relevant to the issue of whether the appellant had a motive to kill the deceased and whether the appellant had a good faith belief that the deceased posed an imminent threat to his life. The court held that the representations were sufficiently proximate in time to the alleged offence and that the court should exercise its discretion to admit them in relation to specific topics. The court held that some of the witness statements were also admissible as they were relevant to the issue of motive and were sufficiently specific and reliable. The court held that the remaining witness statements were not admissible as they were too remote in time, lacked specificity, and were unreliable.

The court allowed the appeal in part and remitted the matter to the trial court for a new trial. The court held that the trial judge had erred in excluding some of the representations and witness statements and that this error was likely to have affected the outcome of the trial. The court held that the appellant was entitled to a new trial in which the representations and witness statements could be properly considered by the jury. The court held that the appellant was not entitled to an acquittal as the remaining evidence was sufficient to support a conviction. The court held that the appellant was entitled to be released on bail pending the new trial.