Regina v D W H

The accused was charged with offences of sexual penetration, sexual intercourse, and indecent assault. The offences were alleged to have occurred on different occasions. The trial judge admitted a statement made by the complainant to the police into evidence. The complainant was unavailable to give evidence at the trial, and the accused sought to challenge the admissibility of the statement. The jury convicted the accused on all counts and the accused appealed against conviction and sentence. The accused's primary ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in admitting the statement. The appeal was to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues in this case were whether the statement was admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule and whether the statement was admissible to refresh the memory of the complainant in the absence of cross-examination. The court noted that the statement was hearsay and that the common law exceptions to the hearsay rule did not apply. The court also noted that the statutory exceptions to the hearsay rule did not apply. The court held that the statement was admissible to refresh the memory of the complainant in the absence of cross-examination. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the statement.

The court noted that the trial judge did not consider whether leave was necessary to admit the statement to refresh the memory of the complainant. The court held that leave was not necessary to admit the statement because the statement was not hearsay and because the statement was not used to prove the truth of its contents. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the statement. The court noted that the statement was not fresh in relation to some of the charges and that a new trial should be ordered. The court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting the statement.

The court ordered that the appeal against conviction be dismissed and that the accused be re-sentenced. The court ordered that the appeal against sentence be allowed and that the accused be re-sentenced. The court ordered that a new trial be ordered in relation to the charges that were not fresh.