Regina v Phillips [1999] NSWSC 1175

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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire on Admissibility of Evidence

  1. 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']