This provision has not been checked by a human. The text below was read automatically from the official PDF and has not yet been verified against it, so it may differ from the provision as published — in its wording, its numbering, or where one provision ends and the next begins. For the authorised text, see legislation.vic.gov.au.
sets out the general exclusionary rule for hearsay evidence ("the hearsay rule"). Under subclause (1), the rule prevents the admission of evidence of a previous representation made by a person to prove the existence of a fact, that the person intended to assert (or it can be reasonably supposed the person intended to assert), by the representation. Subclause (2) defines this to be an "asserted fact" for the purposes of this Division. The 2005 LRCs' Report recommended an amendment to section 59 of the UEAs by the insertion of the words "it can reasonably be supposed that" after "a fact that" (recommendation 7-1). This amendment (along with a new subclause (2A)) is intended to provide further guidance on the definition of hearsay evidence under this Division and foreclose the prospect of courts adopting a different approach to determining the meaning of "intention", such as the approaches explored in R v Hannes (2000) 158 FLR 359. Subclause (2A) clarifies what the court should consider in determining the meaning of "intention" (pursuant to recommendation 7-1 of the 2005 LRCs' Report). It provides the test for determining the intention of the maker. Under this subclause, when determining whether a person intended to assert the existence of facts contained in a previous representation, the test to be applied is what a person in the position of maker of the representation can reasonably be supposed to have intended, having regard to the representation and the circumstances in which the representation was made. The second Note to clause 59 sets out specific exceptions to the hearsay rule. It refers to the sections in the Bill that set out when evidence is admissible (even though it is hearsay evidence). Examples set out under clause 59 illustrate how the clause is intended to operate.