R v Hunter (No. 2)

The case of R v Hunter (No. 2) involved the defendant, Hunter, who was charged with murder. The deceased, a witness in the case, had died prior to the trial, and the prosecution sought to introduce a statement made by the deceased into evidence. Hunter applied for the evidence to be excluded, arguing that it did not meet the requirements of the hearsay exception in section 65(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 and should be excluded under section 137 of the same Act. The court had to determine whether the requirements of section 65(2) were satisfied and, if so, whether the evidence should still be excluded under section 137.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the deceased's statement met the criteria for the hearsay exception under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 and, if it did, whether the evidence should be excluded under section 137 of the same Act. The court needed to consider the circumstances in which the statement was made, the declarant's availability, and whether the statement had sufficient probative value to justify its admission. Additionally, the court had to weigh the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudice it might cause.

The court found that the requirements of section 65(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 were met. The deceased had made the statement under circumstances that suggested its reliability, and the declarant was indeed unavailable to testify. The court concluded that the statement had sufficient probative value to warrant its admission. However, the court also considered section 137 of the Act and determined that, despite the probative value of the evidence, the potential prejudice to the defendant outweighed this value. Consequently, the evidence should be excluded.

The court ordered that the statement of the deceased witness be excluded from evidence in the trial of Hunter for murder. The court's decision hinged on a careful balancing of the probative value of the evidence against the potential prejudice it might cause to the defendant, ultimately finding that the prejudice outweighed the probative value.