R v Xie (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 2119

R v Xie (No 6) [2015] NSWSC 2119

On the parties' agreement, the complaint evidence led from Brenda Lin was treated as admitted under s 108(3)(b) and limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 to credibility only. The Crown would not call further sexual abuse complaint evidence from the identified complaint witnesses, and the jury was directed accordingly. Remarks attributed to Professor Parkinson about the accused's character and implicit concern for the safety of the accused's wife and son were withdrawn from the jury's consideration as irrelevant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility and Use of Complaint Evidence
Outcome
Complaint evidence led from Brenda Lin permitted to be used only in support of credibility; further complaint evidence not to be called; irrelevant remarks withdrawn from the jury's consideration.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Complaint Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'credibility Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'limitation of Use of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['admissibility of Complaint Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'credibility Evidence' 'jury Directions' 'limitation of Use of Evidence']

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 Trial / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility and Use of Complaint Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of Brenda Lin's complaints of alleged sexual abuse was admissible under s 108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the complaint evidence should be limited to credibility only under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether further complaint evidence should be called from Ms CD, Jennifer James, Professor Patrick Parkinson or Ms BC.' "Whether remarks attributed to Professor Parkinson about the accused's character and safety concerns should remain before the jury."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the parties' agreement, the complaint evidence led from Brenda Lin was treated as admitted under s 108(3)(b) and limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 to credibility only. The Crown would not call further sexual abuse complaint evidence from the identified complaint witnesses, and the jury was directed accordingly. Remarks attributed to Professor Parkinson about the accused's character and implicit concern for the safety of the accused's wife and son were withdrawn from the jury's consideration as irrelevant.

Court Disposition

Complaint evidence led from Brenda Lin permitted to be used only in support of credibility; further complaint evidence not to be called; irrelevant remarks withdrawn from the jury's consideration.

Orders

  • ['The Crown was permitted to rely on the complaint evidence led from Brenda Lin as evidence in support of the credibility of her allegations of indecent and sexual assault by the accused before and after the murders.' 'The defence did not and would not challenge the accuracy of evidence that Brenda Lin made...