Mulcahy v R

[2012] ACTCA 3

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Unsafe and unsatisfactory verdict
4. › Trial by judge alone
5. › Whether open to trial judge to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
6. › Whether verdict dangerous to allow to stand
1. Criminal Law
2. › Defences
3. › Self-defence
4. › Burden of proof on Crown to negate self-defence
5. › Whether Crown discharged burden
6. › Zecevic v Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria) (1987) 162 CLR 645
1. Evidence
2. › Hearsay
3. › Prior representations admitted for non-hearsay purpose
4. › Operation of s 60 of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
5. › Whether hearsay rule disapplied
6. › Whether statements to medical practitioners admissible for truth and credibility assessment
7. › Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), ss 60, 136
1. Evidence
2. › Discretion to limit use of evidence
3. › Section 136 of Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
4. › Whether trial judge should have limited use of prior statements
5. › Whether party who tendered evidence can complain of its use

Quick Take

Prior inconsistent statements made by an accused to medical practitioners, tendered by the defence to establish the factual basis for expert opinions, are admissible for their truth under s 60 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) and may be used by the trial judge to assess the accused's credibility. A party who tenders such evidence without seeking a limitation under s 136 cannot complain on appeal that the evidence was used for its testimonial effect.