Out-of-court statements by co-conspirators to a third party about what they told the accused are classic hearsay where their only relevance is to prove the truth of the assertion, and neither Subramaniam nor Walton applies. Evidence of post-offence conduct showing a continuing relationship with co-conspirators is admissible to rebut defences of limited involvement and withdrawal. A trial judge assisting an unrepresented accused should take care not to blur the lines between judge and advocate, and permitting a monologue in evidence-in-chief may be preferable to extensive questioning.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.