The case provides significant guidance on multiple evidence law issues: reasons for judgment in other cases are not admissible under s 157 Evidence Act as 'judgment' means the formal record of orders, not reasons; the onus of proving unavailability for first-hand hearsay exceptions lies on the party seeking to adduce the evidence; and a statement of fact by an identified individual is not 'evidence of reputation' under s 73. On criminal law, the case confirms that the House v The King test applies to all discretionary decisions including those of practice and procedure, though satisfaction is practically harder for procedural decisions. A 'prescribed sexual offence' under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 must involve activities with a sexual component, not merely a sexual motive.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.