R v Martin (No 9) [2017] NSWSC 1377

R v Martin (No 9) [2017] NSWSC 1377

The evidence of the width of the katana blade was admissible because the pathologist had been asked to give evidence on the erroneous assumption that the blade width was between 2.5 and 3.5 centimetres, which made the existing state of the evidence potentially misleading. Limited evidence of the actual measured width of the sword purchased by police was relevant to correct that assumption. Any unfairness from the timing of the evidence could have been cured by recalling relevant witnesses, but no application to recall any witness was made.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Ruling / Admissibility Objection During Trial
Outcome
The evidence of the width of the blade of the katana is admissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), Ss 135, 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), Ss 135, 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

Criminal Law Evidence Ruling / Admissibility Objection During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of the width of the blade of a katana was relevant and admissible after the forensic pathologist had given evidence based on an erroneous assumption about the blade width.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because it might unfairly prejudice the accused or be misused by the jury.' 'Whether any unfairness arose because the blade measurements were obtained after the pathologist and sword seller had given evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the width of the katana blade was admissible because the pathologist had been asked to give evidence on the erroneous assumption that the blade width was between 2.5 and 3.5 centimetres, which made the existing state of the evidence potentially misleading. Limited evidence of the actual measured width of the sword purchased by police was relevant to correct that assumption. Any unfairness from the timing of the evidence could have been cured by recalling relevant witnesses, but no application to recall any witness was made.

Court Disposition

The evidence of the width of the blade of the katana is admissible.

Orders

  • ['Limited evidence of the width of the sword purchased by police was allowed.' 'The measurements of the width of the sword were given orally through Detective Edmonds; with the exception of two photographs showing the length of the sword, the photographs were not tendered or admitted into evidence.']