R v KJ and R v Jayden Hunter

The appellants, KJ and Jayden Hunter, appeared in the Supreme Court of Victoria on appeal against their convictions for drug supply. The appeal centred on the admissibility of an electronically recorded interview with an unfavourable witness, which the Crown sought to tender as evidence. The appellants objected to the tender on the basis that it was hearsay and second-hand hearsay, and therefore inadmissible under the uniform evidence laws. The court was required to determine whether the recorded interview could be admitted as evidence and, if so, under what provisions of the Evidence Act 1995 (Vic).

The court considered the nature of the recorded interview and whether it fell within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court noted that the recording contained statements made by the unfavourable witness to a police officer, which were then repeated by the police officer to the appellants. The court found that the statements made by the unfavourable witness to the police officer were hearsay, and the repetition of those statements by the police officer to the appellants constituted second-hand hearsay. The court then considered whether the evidence fell within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule, including the exception for admissions. The court found that the evidence did not fall within any of the exceptions and was therefore inadmissible.

The court ultimately refused the Crown's application to tender the recorded interview as evidence. The court held that the recorded interview was hearsay and second-hand hearsay and did not fall within any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court found that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the appellants. The court held that the recorded interview was not admissible and could not be used as evidence against the appellants. As a result, the convictions of the appellants were quashed, and the matter was remitted to the County Court for re-trial.