R v Bullock [2005] NSWSC 825

R v Bullock [2005] NSWSC 825

The Crown established that there was a 'reasonable excuse' for not recording the admissions at the scene, given police did not have access to recording equipment and the circumstances were urgent and chaotic. The subsequent adoption of admissions in a recorded ERISP satisfied statutory admissibility requirements. There was no sufficient unfairness or undue prejudice to warrant exclusion under s 90 or s 137 of the Evidence Act.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Ari Hayden Bullock
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Objection to admission of evidence largely overruled except for certain ambiguous or prejudicial remarks excluded.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Admissions, Reasonable Excuse for Not Tape Recording Admissions, Unfairness to Accused, Probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Admissions Reasonable Excuse for Not Tape Recording Admissions Unfairness to Accused Probative Value Vs 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Ari Hayden Bullock

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether admissions not originally tape-recorded are admissible when subsequently adopted in ERISP
  2. 2 Whether there was a 'reasonable excuse' for not tape-recording admissions under s 281 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986
  3. 3 Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 90 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 for unfairness or prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown established that there was a 'reasonable excuse' for not recording the admissions at the scene, given police did not have access to recording equipment and the circumstances were urgent and chaotic. The subsequent adoption of admissions in a recorded ERISP satisfied statutory admissibility requirements. There was no sufficient unfairness or undue prejudice to warrant exclusion under s 90 or s 137 of the Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Objection to admission of evidence largely overruled except for certain ambiguous or prejudicial remarks excluded.

Orders

  • Admissions made by the accused to Constable Monaghan, as adopted in the ERISP, are admissible except for the phrase 'Die, fucken die' and the objectionable part of Q151 in the ERISP, which are excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.