R v Grogan and Slacke (No 1)

In this criminal case, the prosecution sought to introduce hearsay evidence from a victim who had been allegedly assaulted and who subsequently made statements to others about the incident. The victim had been in a coma for some time after the attack and had died before the trial. The issue before the court was whether the victim's statements, which were made some five weeks after the incident, could be admitted under section 65 of the Evidence Act as "shortly after" the occurrence of the asserted fact. The court was also required to consider whether the ambiguity in the statement that the victim had been "bashed" was unfairly prejudicial given that the victim was unavailable for cross-examination.

The court considered the statutory provision for the admission of hearsay evidence and found that the victim's statements could be admitted under section 65 of the Evidence Act. The court found that the statements were made "shortly after" the occurrence of the asserted fact as the victim had made the statements some five weeks after the incident. The court also found that the ambiguity in the statement that the victim had been "bashed" did not unfairly prejudice the defendants as the victim was unavailable for cross-examination and the ambiguity did not go to the heart of the case.

As a result of the court's decision, the hearsay evidence was admitted and the prosecution was able to rely on the victim's statements to support their case. The court found that the ambiguity in the statement did not unfairly prejudice the defendants and did not exclude the evidence under section 65 of the Evidence Act.

The final orders of the court were not provided in the text.