Regina v Phillips [1999] NSWSC 1175
The judge held that the evidence of the ALTEs and prior deaths did not satisfy the requirements of ss 97, 98, and 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as there remained a rational explanation consistent with the accused's innocence, and the probative value of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect; thus, the admission of this evidence was rejected.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 17 December 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- Application for admission of evidence rejected
- Legal Topics
- ['admissibility' 'tendency Evidence' 'coincidence Evidence' 'relationship Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether evidence of prior deaths and medical events involving accused's children is admissible under ss 97, 98, or as relationship evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)" 'Whether probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs its prejudicial effect under s 101(2)']
Ratio Decidendi
The judge held that the evidence of the ALTEs and prior deaths did not satisfy the requirements of ss 97, 98, and 101(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), as there remained a rational explanation consistent with the accused's innocence, and the probative value of the evidence did not substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect; thus, the admission of this evidence was rejected.
Court Disposition
Application for admission of evidence rejected
Orders
- ['Admission of evidence pursuant to ss 97 and 98 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) rejected' 'Application to admit evidence of ALTEs, prior deaths, and injuries as tendency or coincidence evidence dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment