R v Wiggins (No 3)

In the case of R v Wiggins (No 3), the defendant was facing charges related to a murder, and the prosecution sought to introduce hearsay evidence from a Crown witness, who had been charged as an accessory before the fact but had their charges no-billed. The dispute centered around whether the statements made by the Crown witness could be admitted as evidence under the hearsay rule exceptions or if they should be excluded under section 137 due to unfair prejudice. The court was required to determine whether the statements constituted first-hand hearsay or implied admissions, whether they were made with authority in furtherance of a common purpose, and if they were fresh in the witness's memory. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed the potential unfair prejudice and whether a section 165 warning would be appropriate.

The court found that the statements were first-hand hearsay and not admissions, as they were not made with authority in furtherance of a common purpose after the death of the deceased. The common purpose had ended upon the death, and the narrative statements made after the event were not made in furtherance of that purpose. However, the court held that the statements were fresh in the memory due to the nature of the events, despite being made up to seven years after the incident. The court also considered whether the evidence should be admitted as credibility evidence in the alternative, but ultimately concluded that the probative value of the evidence outweighed the unfair prejudice. The court found that a section 165 warning would be appropriate due to the hearsay nature of the evidence.

The court's decision was that the hearsay evidence from the Crown witness regarding their involvement in the alleged murder was admissible. The probative value of the evidence was sufficient to outweigh the potential unfair prejudice, and a section 165 warning would be given to the jury to address the hearsay nature of the evidence. The court's ruling allowed the prosecution to present the statements as part of their case against the defendant.