When assessing whether a hearsay representation was made in circumstances making it highly probable the representation is reliable under s 93B(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), the court must consider all relevant circumstances and not isolate a single factor such as intoxication. Relevant circumstances include the seriousness of the subject matter, the demeanour and purpose of the representor, the absence of motive to fabricate, and the relationship of trust between the parties. An appellate court will not interfere with a trial judge's factual findings on a voir dire unless the finding was not reasonably open. Discrepancies in a prosecution witness's evidence and prior inconsistent statements are matters for the jury and do not, without more, justify appellate interference with a verdict.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.