LAW20009 Week 5: Week 5 Collab Notes

---
title:
  name: Table of Contents
  level: 1
  center: false
exclude: ""
style:
  listType: dash
omit: []
levels:
  min: 1
  max: 6
---

# Table of Contents

- Week 5 – Hearsay and Its Exceptions
    - Overview
    - Key Concepts and Legal Doctrines
        - 1. The Hearsay Rule – Section 59
        - IRAC: <Badge text="Subramaniam v Public Prosecutor" variant="caution" /> [1956] 1 WLR 965
        - 2. Section 60 – Exception for Evidence Admitted for Non-Hearsay Purposes
        - IRAC: <Badge text="Lee v The Queen" variant="caution" /> (1998) 195 CLR 594
        - 3. Other Key Exceptions (s<Badge text="s 61" variant="tip" />–75)
            - Section 65 – Unavailable Witnesses
            - Section 66 – Available Witness with Limited Memory
            - Section 69 – Business Records
            - Section<Badge text="s 81" variant="tip" />–82 – Admissions and Representations
        - IRAC: <Badge text="Walton v The Queen" variant="caution" /> (1989) 166 CLR 283
    - Practical Application Framework
    - Worked Examples
        - Quiz Example: Witness Statement Scenario
    - Practical Exam and Study Tips
    - Supplementary Reading and References
    - Open Questions or Clarifications

Week 5 – Hearsay and Its Exceptions

Subject: LAW20009 – Evidence Law Lecturer: Alana Ray Date: Week 5 (specific date not provided) Materials: Transcript + Slides

Overview

Topic Summary Week 5 introduces the hearsay rule under section 59 of the *Evidence Act 2008 *(Vic)**, including its application, key exceptions (section–75), and related principles. The lecture provides a structured analytical approach to hearsay issues, case-based examples, and practical guidance for assessment problem-solving.

Key Concepts and Legal Doctrines

1. The Hearsay Rule – Section 59

Purpose Test If evidence is offered for a non-hearsay purpose (e.g., effect on listener, state of mind), it may avoid the hearsay rule.

IRAC: [1956] 1 WLR 965

Element	Detail
Issue	Is evidence of out-of-court statements hearsay if tendered for a purpose other than proving truth?
Rule	Statements used for purposes other than proving their truth are not hearsay.
Application	Statements of threats offered not for their truth but to establish duress.
Conclusion	Admissible.
Ratio	Statements are only hearsay if offered to prove the truth of their contents.

---

2. Section 60 – Exception for Evidence Admitted for Non-Hearsay Purposes

Operation Allows evidence admitted initially for a non-hearsay purpose to also be used for its truth.

Example

Statement admitted to explain police actions later admissible to prove the stated facts are true.

IRAC: <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1998) 195 CLR 594

Element	Detail
Issue	Can statements initially admitted for credibility be subsequently used for their truth under ?
Rule	permits the truth of evidence initially admitted for another purpose.
Application	Prior statements initially admitted to assess credibility were allowed to prove truth.
Conclusion	Admissible.
Ratio	Evidence admitted for non-hearsay reasons becomes substantive evidence under .

---

3. Other Key Exceptions (s–75)

Section 65 – Unavailable Witnesses

Admits hearsay statements from unavailable witnesses if reliable.

Section 66 – Available Witness with Limited Memory

Allows contemporaneous statements to bolster memory or credibility.

Section 69 – Business Records

Documents created in regular business practice admissible as evidence of truth.

Section–82 – Admissions and Representations

Statements made by a party against their interest or prior consistent statements under certain conditions.

IRAC: <Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1989) 166 CLR 283

Element	Detail
Issue	Does hearsay rule apply to implied assertions?
Rule	Only intentional assertions fall under hearsay.
Application	Witness’s implied belief inferred from conduct not intentionally asserted.
Conclusion	Not hearsay.
Ratio	Hearsay rule applies only to intentionally asserted statements.

---

Practical Application Framework

Five-Step Analytical Approach to Hearsay:

Is it a previous representation (statement/assertion)?
Is it offered to prove its truth?
If yes, does allow admission for truth via a non-hearsay purpose?
Are there other exceptions (s–75)?
Should it still be excluded under discretionary exclusion (s, 137)?

Worked Examples

Quiz Example: Witness Statement Scenario

Facts Witness testifies, “I heard Sarah say she saw Dave steal the wallet.”

Issues

Is Sarah’s statement hearsay?
Is it admissible?

IRAC Analysis

Element	Detail
Issue	Can witness testimony about Sarah’s statement be admitted to prove Dave stole the wallet?
Rule	Hearsay under ; may be admissible under exceptions (s, 65, 66).
Application	Statement offered to prove theft. Likely hearsay without exceptions (availability, contemporaneity not indicated).
Conclusion	Likely inadmissible without exceptions met.
Ratio	Hearsay requires explicit exception to be admissible for truth.

---

Practical Exam and Study Tips

Key Mnemonics

“Truth-Purpose = Hearsay”
“Non-Truth Purpose + = Possibly admissible”
“Unavailable? → Check ”
“Business document? → ”

Common Mistakes

Treating statements of intention or state of mind automatically as hearsay.
Overlooking dual-purpose admissibility.

Supplementary Reading and References

Cases

[1956] 1 WLR 965
<Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1998) 195 CLR 594
<Badge text="" variant=“note” /> (1989) 166 CLR 283

Legislation

(Vic) s–75, 81–82

Open Questions or Clarifications

Clarify situations where does not apply despite non-hearsay initial purpose.
Thresholds for reliability under —when does hearsay become sufficiently reliable?