R v Qaumi (No 28)

The case of R v Qaumi (No 28) involved the respondent, who was charged with multiple counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and reckless grievous bodily harm. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence presented during the trial, particularly in relation to the impact of the alleged offences on a child victim. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether specific evidence was admissible under the rules of evidence.

The court had to consider the admissibility of evidence relating to the emotional and physical impact of the shooting on the child victim. This included evidence of the injuries sustained by the child, as well as what the child had been told by medical professionals. The central issue was whether this evidence constituted hearsay and, if so, whether it could be admitted under the hearsay exception for a victim’s impact statement. The court also needed to assess whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the jury.

In reaching its decision, the court found that while the evidence of the child's injuries and the statements made by medical professionals were indeed hearsay, they were not being used to prove the facts asserted by the declarants. Instead, the evidence was being used to demonstrate the impact of the injuries on the child, which was relevant to the charges of grievous bodily harm. The court concluded that the evidence was not in the nature of a victim’s impact statement, as there was no dispute about the grievous bodily harm caused, and it was not a clear admission by the accused. Consequently, the probative value of the evidence was deemed sufficient to outweigh any prejudicial effect, leading to its admissibility.

The court's final orders were that the evidence of the child's injuries and the statements made by medical professionals were admissible, as they were relevant to establishing the impact of the assault on the child and thus to the charges of grievous bodily harm. This evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury to assist in understanding the full extent of the harm caused by the respondent's actions.