The Supreme Court of Australia Transcript of Proceedings Between Peter Julian Hansen (Plaintiff) and Northern Land Council (Defendant) pages 52-117
Tabled paper 807
Tabled Papers for 8th Assembly 1997 - 2001; Tabled Papers; ParliamentNT
Tabledby Shane Stone
Made available by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory under Standing Order 240. Where copyright subsists with a third party it remains with the original owner and permission may be required to reuse the material.
conveyed to Mr Hansen which then sets in context Mr Hansen's subsequent conduct in relation to what he is required to do. So, I'm not, in ef f ee t t r yi n g to prove the truth of what Mr Dodson and Mr Tichner m'ay have discussed, simply what Mr Dodson said to Mr Hansen. HIS HONOUR: Yes, I ll allow it. MR SOUTHWOOD: If Your Honour pleases. HIS HONOUR: (Inaudible) the DPP? MR SOUTHWOOD: If Your Honour pleases. What did Mr Dodson say to you, Mr Hansen?---He said to me that he had just had an awful meeting with the minister, that he was furious, that he'd been severely rebuked, that the minister had said to him, 'Don't you come the high moral ground with me, you get your own fucking house in order.' And did he go on - that is, Mr Dodson - to give you any instructions about what he wished you to do?---Yes, he did. He explained why the minister was enraged. ^ What did-he say in that regard?---He said the minister had given him a copy of an ATSIC briefing paper and he was - - Yes, go on?---And he was proposing to get me and the administration manager - - MR O'LOUGHLIN: Again, Your Honour, it's now hearsay evidence of the emotional state of a third person, if not a fourth person - Mr Tichner - and the reason for that emotional state, why he's angry? Presumably, this witness says, because of some document. So it's hearsay about fourth party and trying to deduce the emotions of that person and trying to give a reason why he might have felt that emotion, 'anger' at the financial document. I d submit - - HIS HONOUR: It's not being led as to the truth of what's said, it's merely being led as a communication between Dodson and the witness as an explanation for what Dodson asked the witness to do and the state of knowledge of the. witness in acting on Dodson's request. For that purpose, it's admissible under the (Inaudible) and the DPP; its the fact of what was said not the truth of what was said thats in issue. MR O'LOUGHLIN: I'd submit that that doesn't apply to opinions as to someone's emotional state. Theyre trying to give evidence.of the fact of the minister being angry and that's coming via another person, Mr Dodson - - 46/ld Hansen 102 P.J. HANSEN XN 18/11/98