The King v Wasaga

[2024] NTSC 89

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Evidence
2. › Criminal law
3. › Exceptions to the hearsay rule
4. › Application of exception contained within s 66A
5. › Whether contemporaneous representations are about the feelings and state of mind of deceased
6. › Broad interpretation of s 66A should not be applied
7. › Such a representation must contain more than a narrative about the occurrence of an event.
1. Evidence
2. › Criminal law
3. › Crown application to adduce evidence of the accused’s state of mind at a period of hours after the alleged offence
4. › Whether evidence should be excluded pursuant to s 137
5. › Evidence has significant probative value
6. › Probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice
7. › Appropriate directions can ameliorate any risks in the circumstances of the case
8. › Evidence of the accused’s state of mind is admissible and should not be excluded.
1. Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) (‘ENULA’) ss 59, 65(2)(b), 65(2)(c), 66, 66A, 137, 138, 192A.
1. S Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law (Thompson Reuters, 19th ed, 2024).