R v McCloskey; R v Hamalainen

The appellants were charged with conspiracy to commit a serious indictable offence. The prosecution sought to adduce evidence of out-of-court representations made by the appellants concerning their involvement in a past joint criminal enterprise. The appellants challenged the admissibility of this evidence on the basis that it was hearsay, and that the exceptions to the hearsay rule did not apply. The matter was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to decide whether the out-of-court representations were hearsay, and if so, whether any of the exceptions to the hearsay rule applied. The court considered the nature of the representations, the circumstances in which they were made, and the purpose for which they were being adduced. The court also considered whether the representations were admissions or whether they were admissible for a non-hearsay purpose.

The court held that the out-of-court representations were hearsay, as they were previous representations made out of court and were being adduced to prove the truth of the matter asserted. However, the court found that the representations were not inadmissible hearsay because they fell within an exception to the hearsay rule. The court held that the representations were admissions, as they were made by the appellants and were against their interest. The court also held that the representations were admissible for a non-hearsay purpose, as they were relevant to the issue of the appellants' involvement in the past joint criminal enterprise, and their admissibility outweighed any prejudicial effect.

The court ordered that the evidence be admitted, and that the matter be remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration.