R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1043

R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1043

The proposed evidence was relevant to the accused's true financial position and motivation, and could support an inference that he wished to conceal from his employer the loan and avoid scrutiny that might uncover matters including the alleged conspiracy. Although the evidence had some prejudicial effect, its probative value was of some force and was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, so it was not excluded under s 137 and the discretion under s 135 was not exercised.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'motive' 'evidence Act Ss 135 and 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'motive' 'evidence Act Ss 135 and 137']

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

Common Law Criminal / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence that the accused induced Mr Newton not to disclose the accused's repayment obligation in a financial declaration was relevant." 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed evidence was relevant to the accused's true financial position and motivation, and could support an inference that he wished to conceal from his employer the loan and avoid scrutiny that might uncover matters including the alleged conspiracy. Although the evidence had some prejudicial effect, its probative value was of some force and was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, so it was not excluded under s 137 and the discretion under s 135 was not exercised.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted

Orders

  • ['The evidence is allowed to be given.']