R v Weaver [2022] NSWSC 599

R v Weaver [2022] NSWSC 599

The first disputed passage was admissible because Mr Weaver's denial of stabbing Ms Howlett was relevant to credibility and, if he gave contrary evidence at trial, could be used by the prosecution consistently with R v Soma and s 106. The second disputed passage was not admissible because alleged flight at arrest could not safely be treated as consciousness of guilt of murder given other reasons for flight, and in any event should be excluded under s 137 because of the complexity of Mr Weaver's circumstances. The third disputed passage was admissible because Mr Weaver's account of his relationship with Mr White and his attitude toward him was relevant to animosity, protectiveness, and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder; Evidentiary Ruling Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) / Procedural Ruling Before Trial on Disputed Passages in the Accused's Recorded Interview
Outcome
The first and third disputed passages of the record of interview were admitted; the second disputed passage was not admitted.
Legal Topics
["admissibility of Accused's Record of Interview" 'section 192 a Ruling' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'unfairness in Police Questioning' 'flight and Consciousness of Guilt' 'exclusion Under S 137 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'excessive Self Defence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ["admissibility of Accused's Record of Interview" 'section 192 a Ruling' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'unfairness in Police Questioning' 'flight and Consciousness of Guilt' 'exclusion Under S 137 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'excessive 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 Proceeding for Murder; Evidentiary Ruling Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) / Procedural Ruling Before Trial on Disputed Passages in the Accused's Recorded Interview

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the passage in which Mr Weaver denied stabbing Ms Howlett was admissible.' "Whether passages concerning the circumstances of Mr Weaver's arrest, alleged flight, and a knife in his possession were admissible or should be excluded under s 137 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether passages concerning Mr Weaver's relationship with and attitude towards Mr White before 20 December 2019 were admissible."]

Ratio Decidendi

The first disputed passage was admissible because Mr Weaver's denial of stabbing Ms Howlett was relevant to credibility and, if he gave contrary evidence at trial, could be used by the prosecution consistently with R v Soma and s 106. The second disputed passage was not admissible because alleged flight at arrest could not safely be treated as consciousness of guilt of murder given other reasons for flight, and in any event should be excluded under s 137 because of the complexity of Mr Weaver's circumstances. The third disputed passage was admissible because Mr Weaver's account of his relationship with Mr White and his attitude toward him was relevant to animosity, protectiveness, and the...

Court Disposition

The first and third disputed passages of the record of interview were admitted; the second disputed passage was not admitted.

Orders

  • ['Allow the admission of the first disputed passage of the record of interview.' 'Do not allow the admission of the second disputed passage of the record of interview.' 'Allow the admission of the third disputed passage of the record of interview.']