R v Yau

This matter came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia by way of a case stated, concerning a criminal appeal by the applicant, R v Yau. The dispute centred on the admissibility of foreign material, specifically witness statements from Hong Kong Customs officers, in a drug importation trial.

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in exercising their discretion under section 25 of the *Foreign Evidence Act* to exclude the statements of the Hong Kong Customs officers. This required the court to consider whether the judge's decision was vitiated by a failure to properly apply the principles established in *House v The King*, particularly in relation to the separate consideration of each officer's testimony and the exploration of alternative means to adduce the evidence.

The Full Court reasoned that the trial judge's exercise of discretion under section 25 was flawed. The court held that the judge failed to consider the discretion separately in relation to each individual Customs officer's statement. Furthermore, the judge did not adequately inquire into or make findings about what steps could have been taken to adduce the evidence by alternative means, nor the potential delay and expense associated with such alternatives, if each affirmation were excluded.

Consequently, the court concluded that the exercise of the discretion was vitiated by these failures. The question reserved was answered in the affirmative, indicating that the trial judge's exclusion of the Hong Kong statements was an error.