Consider the following hypothetical situation:

On 18 January 2024, A was driving in the centre of Sydney, when he suddenly lost control of the car and hit pedestrian B who was walking on a sidewalk in an area where the speed limit is 30 km/h.A is prosecuted for negligent driving causing grievous bodily harm.

The prosecution calls witnesses C and D, whilst the defence calls witness E.

Examined by the prosecution, C witnesses that the road was in good condition when A hit B (1).

In cross-examination, the defence adduces a statement made by C out of court that the road was slippery when A hit B (2).

In re-examination, the prosecution adduces a statement made by C out of court that X told him the road was in good condition when A hit B (3).

Examined by the prosecution, witness D states that it was a sunny day when A hit B (4). He also states he heard F saying that G told him that A was driving at 40 km/h when he hit B (5).

In cross-examination, the defence adduces a statement made by D out of court that he heard F saying that G told him that A was driving at 20 km/h when he hit B (6).

The defence also adduces as evidence some oil that was collected at the place of the accident (7).

Assess the admissibility of evidence 1-7.