Commonwealth Numbered Acts

EVIDENCE ACT 1995 No. 2 of 1995 - SECT 59

59. (1) Evidence of a previous representation made by a person is not
admissible to prove the existence of a fact that the person intended to assert
by the representation.

(2) Such a fact is in this Part referred to as an asserted fact. Note:
Specific exceptions to the hearsay rule are as follows:
- evidence relevant for a non-hearsay purpose (section 60);
- first-hand hearsay:
- civil proceedings, if the maker of the representation is unavailable
(section 63) or available (section 64);
- criminal proceedings, if the maker of the representation is unavailable
(section 65) or available (section 66);
- business records (section 69);
- tags and labels (section 70);
- telecommunications (section 71);
- contemporaneous statements about a person's health etc. (section 72);
- marriage, family history or family relationships (section 73);
- public or general rights (section 74);
- use of evidence in interlocutory proceedings (section 75);
- admissions (section 81);
- representations about employment or authority (subsection 87(2));
- exceptions to the rule excluding evidence of judgments and convictions
(subsection 92(3));
- character of and expert opinion about accused persons (sections 110 and 111)
.
Other provisions of this Act, or of other laws, may operate as further
exceptions.

Examples:

(1) D is the defendant in a sexual assault trial. W has made a statement to
the police that X told W that X had seen D leave a night club with the victim
shortly before the sexual assault is alleged to have occurred. Unless an
exception to the hearsay rule applies, evidence of what X told W cannot be
given at the trial.

(2) P had told W that the handbrake on W's car did not work. Unless an
exception to the hearsay rule applies, evidence of that statement cannot be
given by P, W or anyone else to prove that the handbrake was defective.

(3) W had bought a video cassette recorder and written down its serial number
on a document. Unless an exception to the hearsay rule applies, the document
is inadmissible to prove that a video cassette recorder later found in D's
possession was the video cassette recorder bought by W.