R v Krishnan [2017] NSWDC 460

R v Krishnan [2017] NSWDC 460

The meeting was voluntary, the accused agreed to attend and be recorded, there was no evidence of threat, promise, inducement, relevant vulnerability, impropriety or contravention of Australian law, and the questioning was not hostile, aggressive or particularly challenging. The admissions had significant probative value and little danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, even accepting that s 85(1)(b) applied, no ground existed under ss 85, 90, 137 or 138 of the Evidence Act to reject the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Prior to Empanelment of the Jury; Defence Application to Reject Evidence From a Community Accountability Meeting
Outcome
Defence application refused; evidence of the Community Accountability Meeting found admissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Admissions' 'community Accountability Meeting' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'unfairness to the Accused' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['admissibility of Admissions' 'community Accountability Meeting' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'unfairness to the Accused' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice']

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 Prior to Empanelment of the Jury; Defence Application to Reject Evidence From a Community Accountability Meeting

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence including a signed agreement and electronically recorded conversation from the Community Accountability Meeting should be rejected under s 85 of the Evidence Act.' 'Whether it would be unfair to the accused to admit evidence of admissions under s 90 of the Evidence Act.' 'Whether the probative value of the admissions was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act.' 'Whether the evidence was obtained improperly, in consequence of impropriety, or in contravention of an Australian law under s 138 of the Evidence Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The meeting was voluntary, the accused agreed to attend and be recorded, there was no evidence of threat, promise, inducement, relevant vulnerability, impropriety or contravention of Australian law, and the questioning was not hostile, aggressive or particularly challenging. The admissions had significant probative value and little danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, even accepting that s 85(1)(b) applied, no ground existed under ss 85, 90, 137 or 138 of the Evidence Act to reject the evidence.

Court Disposition

Defence application refused; evidence of the Community Accountability Meeting found admissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence will be admitted.']