Singh v The Queen

The appellant, Mr. Singh, appealed against his conviction. The central issue concerned the Crown's decision not to tender a record of interview conducted with the appellant, which contained both inculpatory and exculpatory material, but was substantially exculpatory. The appeal was heard by Kelly, Blokland, and Barr JJ.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Crown has a duty to tender "mixed" records of interview in its case, and if so, whether the failure to do so in this instance rendered the trial unfair. The appellant argued that a failure to tender such material constituted a breach of the Crown's duty of fairness, relying on a line of New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal cases.

The Court determined that there is no general duty on the Crown to tender "mixed" records of interview. The admissibility of such statements is governed by the ordinary rules of evidence, focusing on relevance and the hearsay rule. The Court found that the New South Wales authorities relied upon by the appellant were not definitive on the point, often being obiter dicta or based on a misapplication of evidentiary principles. Specifically, the Court rejected the reasoning in *R v Rymer*, which suggested that section 60 of the Uniform Evidence Act would render exculpatory statements admissible as evidence of their truth simply because they also served the purpose of bolstering the accused's credibility. The Court clarified that section 60 does not permit the admission of otherwise inadmissible hearsay evidence merely because it has a secondary, admissible purpose.

The Court concluded that the failure to tender the record of interview did not render the trial unfair. The admissibility of the interview was a matter for the prosecutor's discretion, guided by the rules of evidence. The appeal was dismissed.