R v Jones [2014] NSWSC 695

R v Jones [2014] NSWSC 695

The proposed evidence is relevant and its probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Consequently, the evidence is allowed.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Wayne Edward Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Evidence (voir Dire)
Outcome
Evidence allowed
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Relevance, Unfair Prejudice, Hearsay
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Relevance Unfair Prejudice Hearsay

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Wayne Edward Jones

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Evidence (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed evidence of Leanne Margaret Cavers is relevant under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed evidence is relevant and its probative value is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Consequently, the evidence is allowed.

Court Disposition

Evidence allowed

Orders

  • Paragraph 26 of Crown voir dire exhibit A is admitted as evidence