CRIMINAL PROCEDURE — Trial — Voir dire – pre-trial ruling on admissibility of hearsay statements
EVIDENCE — Hearsay — Exceptions — First-hand hearsay exceptions – s 65(2) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – s 66A Evidence Act – meaning of “circumstances” – whether circumstances make it unlikely that representation is a fabrication – whether representation made in circumstances that make it highly probable that representation is reliable – contemporaneous representations about intention, knowledge, or state of mind – relationship evidence – hearsay representations made by deceased in spousal murder trial – statements made by deceased alleging financial and physical abuse by accused
In the matter of HIH Insurance Limited (In Liquidation); In the matter of HIH Insurance Limited (In Liquidation); In the matter of HIH Insurance Limited (In Liquidation); Cuong Ly v HIH Insurance Limited (In Liquidation) [2015] NSWSC 790
Solicitors: Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Michael Vassili Barristers and Solicitors (Accused)
File Number(s):
2017/00330134
Judgment
On 3 December 2013, Parwinder Kaur died as a result of burns to her body. On 1 November 2017 her husband Kulwinder Singh was charged with her murder.
On 12 August 2019, Mr Singh pleaded not guilty to murder and a trial proceeded before me and a jury of twelve. On 18 October 2019, I discharged the jury as I was satisfied that it was unable to reach a decision, even by majority.
Mr Singh’s second trial was listed to commence on 13 April 2020 but had to be vacated due…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Singh (No 4)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75
Case
[2021] NSWSC 75
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in R v Singh (No 4) was brought before the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Mr Singh, was convicted of the murder of his wife, Ms Kaur. The dispute centred around the admissibility of hearsay statements made by the deceased, which were alleged to be contemporaneous representations about the intention, knowledge, or state of mind of the accused. The statements included allegations of financial and physical abuse by the accused, which were admitted at trial under the first-hand hearsay exceptions in s 65(2) and s 66A of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the hearsay exceptions applied to the statements made by the deceased and, if so, whether the circumstances under which the statements were made rendered them unlikely to be fabrications and highly probable to be reliable. The court also needed to determine if the statements were relevant to establishing the accused’s state of mind and intention, which were critical to the prosecution’s case.
The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the provisions of s 65(2) and s 66A of the Evidence Act, focusing on the meaning of “circumstances” and whether they made the representations reliable. It considered the nature of the statements, the relationship between the deceased and the accused, and the context in which the statements were made. The court found that the statements were admissible as they were made in circumstances that made it highly probable they were reliable and relevant to the accused’s state of mind and intention at the time of the alleged murder. Consequently, the conviction was upheld.
The final orders of the Court of Criminal Appeal were to dismiss the appeal and confirm the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife.