R v Green (No 8)

In this case, the respondent, Green, was convicted of drug trafficking and was appealing the decision on the basis that certain evidence had been improperly admitted. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting certain hearsay evidence. Specifically, the evidence was a statement made by a witness who had been unavailable to testify at the trial. The statement was made to a police officer three months after the events it described, and the court had to determine if this constituted a valid exception to the hearsay rule.

The court considered whether the exception for first-hand hearsay, which applies when the declarant is unavailable and the statement is fresher in the declarant's memory than it would be if given in court, was applicable. The court noted that the witness had a history of substance abuse and that the events in question were of significant notoriety in the community. The court concluded that despite the three-month delay, the statement was sufficiently fresh in the memory of the declarant to be admissible. The nature of the events and the declarant's familiarity with them contributed to the reliability of the statement, and the court found that the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence.

The High Court upheld the conviction, holding that the evidence was properly admitted under the first-hand hearsay exception. The court emphasised the importance of the declarant's familiarity with the events, their notoriety, and the declarant's history in assessing the reliability of the statement. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed. The court's decision provides guidance on the application of the first-hand hearsay exception in cases where the declarant is unavailable and the statement is made some time after the events described.