R v Hickson (No. 2)

The appeal by the respondent, the defendant, was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appeal was against a conviction by the Supreme Court of Queensland for murder. The appellant claimed that evidence was wrongly excluded by the trial judge. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have allowed a witness to refresh their memory with a statement made before giving evidence. The witness had given evidence that they did not recall the events of the night in question. The trial judge had ruled that the witness could not be allowed to refresh their memory with the statement they had made prior to giving evidence because it would be unfair to the appellant to allow the witness to refresh their memory in court. The appellant argued that the trial judge should have allowed the witness to refresh their memory.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge had erred in excluding the witness's evidence on the basis that it would be unfair to the appellant. The court noted that there is a distinction between evidence that is hearsay and evidence that is not. Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible because it is second-hand. However, there are exceptions to this rule, including where a witness is permitted to refresh their memory with a document or statement made before giving evidence. The court considered the law and found that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence. The court found that the trial judge had misunderstood the law in relation to the admission of evidence to refresh a witness's memory.

The court held that the trial judge had erred in excluding the evidence. The court held that the trial judge should have allowed the witness to refresh their memory with the statement they had made before giving evidence. The court held that the evidence was not hearsay and was admissible. The court held that the trial judge had misunderstood the law in relation to the admission of evidence to refresh a witness's memory. The court allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. The court ordered that the appellant be acquitted and discharged.