59The hearsay rule—exclusion of hearsay evidence

59 The hearsay rule—exclusion of hearsay evidence

(1) Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not admissible to prove the existence of a fact that it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert by the representation. (2) Such a fact is in this Part referred to as an asserted fact. (2A) For the purposes of determining under subsection (1) whether it can reasonably be supposed that the person intended to assert a particular fact by the representation, the court may have regard to the circumstances in which the representation was made.

Note: Subsection (2A) was inserted as a response to the decision of the Supreme Court of NSW in R. v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359.

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to evidence of a representation contained in a certificate or other document given or made under regulations made under an Act other than this Act to the extent to which the regulations provide that the certificate or other document has evidentiary effect.

Note: Specific exceptions to the hearsay rule are as follows:

Note: evidence relevant for a non‑hearsay purpose (section 60);

Note: first‑hand hearsay:

Note: – civil proceedings, if the maker of the representation is unavailable (section 63) or available (section 64);

Note: – criminal proceedings, if the maker of the representation is unavailable (section 65) or available (section 66);

Note: contemporaneous statements about a person’s health etc. (section 66A);

Note: business records (section 69);

Note: tags and labels (section 70);

Note: electronic communications (section 71);

Note: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander traditional laws and customs (section 72);

Note: marriage, family history or family relationships (section 73);

Note: public or general rights (section 74);

Note: use of evidence in interlocutory proceedings (section 75);

Note: admissions (section 81);

Note: representations about employment or authority (subsection 87(2));