R v MR, JB and CS (young persons) (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 250

R v MR, JB and CS (young persons) (No 2) [2024] NSWSC 250

The MR CCTV evidence was admissible against JB because MR was unavailable, the representation was made within minutes of the asserted fact in circumstances making fabrication unlikely, it had high probative value as to JB's state of mind in the alleged joint criminal enterprise, and any risk of unfair prejudice could be addressed by directions. The BS admission evidence was admissible against MR as an admission under s 81 and was not unfairly prejudicial despite AE not fully listening and MR not disputing the stabbing. The BS/MR evidence was admissible against MR because it was relied on for the non-hearsay purpose of showing BS told MR to change his account and raise self-defence, was...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Joint Murder Trial / Interlocutory Procedural Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
All three challenged categories of evidence were held admissible for the identified purposes.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of CCTV Evidence' 'hearsay Rule and Exceptions' 'admissions' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'opinion Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'self Defence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of CCTV Evidence' 'hearsay Rule and Exceptions' 'admissions' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'opinion Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'self Defence']

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 Proceedings; Joint Murder Trial / Interlocutory Procedural Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether MR's CCTV representation was admissible against JB as hearsay under s 65(2)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and whether it should be excluded under s 137." "Whether AE's evidence that MR told BS he was the person who stabbed the deceased was admissible against MR as an admission, and whether it should be excluded under s 137." "Whether AE's evidence of BS's statements to MR and the intercepted BS/MR telephone conversation were inadmissible hearsay or opinion evidence, or should be excluded under s 137."]

Ratio Decidendi

The MR CCTV evidence was admissible against JB because MR was unavailable, the representation was made within minutes of the asserted fact in circumstances making fabrication unlikely, it had high probative value as to JB's state of mind in the alleged joint criminal enterprise, and any risk of unfair prejudice could be addressed by directions. The BS admission evidence was admissible against MR as an admission under s 81 and was not unfairly prejudicial despite AE not fully listening and MR not disputing the stabbing. The BS/MR evidence was admissible against MR because it was relied on for the non-hearsay purpose of showing BS told MR to change his account and raise self-defence, was...

Court Disposition

All three challenged categories of evidence were held admissible for the identified purposes.

Orders

  • ['The MR CCTV evidence is admissible (against JB).' 'The BS admission evidence is admissible (against MR).' 'The BS/MR evidence is admissible (against MR).']