R v RB (No 4) [2020] NSWDC 580

R v RB (No 4) [2020] NSWDC 580

The accused sought the same admissibility order previously refused. The earlier ruling that the Crown evidence was relevant, probative of a fact in issue and admissible was a pre-trial ruling binding under s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. In light of s 8 of the Evidence Act 1995, s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was not affected, and the accused could not rely on ss 135 and/or 137 of the Evidence Act to defeat the legislative intention and exclusionary rule in s 293. The judge was not satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for the earlier order to be binding.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Notice of Motion for an Advanced Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
The evidence proposed to be adduced by the Crown is admissible; the accused's application was refused.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'pre Trial Orders' 'complaint Evidence']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'sexual Offence Proceedings'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'pre Trial Orders' 'complaint 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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Notice of Motion for an Advanced Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the evidence proposed to be adduced by the Crown from the complainant, the complainant's friend and the complainant's medical practitioner should be ruled inadmissible under s 135 and/or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether s 8 of the Evidence Act 1995 and s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 prevented the accused from relying on ss 135 and 137 to defeat the exclusionary rule in s 293.' 'Whether the earlier pre-trial ruling on admissibility was binding under s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986.']

Ratio Decidendi

The accused sought the same admissibility order previously refused. The earlier ruling that the Crown evidence was relevant, probative of a fact in issue and admissible was a pre-trial ruling binding under s 130A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. In light of s 8 of the Evidence Act 1995, s 293 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 was not affected, and the accused could not rely on ss 135 and/or 137 of the Evidence Act to defeat the legislative intention and exclusionary rule in s 293. The judge was not satisfied that it would be contrary to the interests of justice for the earlier order to be binding.

Court Disposition

The evidence proposed to be adduced by the Crown is admissible; the accused's application was refused.

Orders

  • ['The evidence proposed to be adduced by the Crown is admissible.' 'The order sought in ground number two in the notice of motion dated 14 September 2020 is refused.']