R v Rawlinson; R v Proud; R v Spicer [2014] NSWSC 171

R v Rawlinson; R v Proud; R v Spicer [2014] NSWSC 171

The Court ruled item by item on the disputed evidence by balancing probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice and by considering whether any prejudice could be cured by jury directions. Some passages were admitted, some were excised, and others were rejected where the prejudice to a co-accused was too great to be reliably quarantined. The Crown's application for an inspection of 6 Doncaster Street, Corrimal was allowed because the layout of the premises was significant to the issues concerning Mr Spicer's knowledge or observations, and any prejudice from the restored premises was not unfair.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural and Evidentiary Ruling in a Joint Trial / Pre Trial or Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence and Crown Application for a View
Outcome
Evidentiary rulings made; Crown's application for inspection of 6 Doncaster Street, Corrimal allowed; liberty to apply granted.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'joint Trial' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'hearsay' 'electronically Recorded Interviews' 'intercepted Telephone Calls From Gaol' 'recovered Text Messages and Recorded Phone Messages' 'view or Inspection of Premises' 'evidence Act 1995 S 53']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'joint Trial' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'hearsay' 'electronically Recorded Interviews' 'intercepted Telephone Calls From Gaol' 'recovered Text Messages and Recorded Phone Messages' 'view or Inspection of Premises' 'evidence Act 1995 S 53']

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 Procedural and Evidentiary Ruling in a Joint Trial / Pre Trial or Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence and Crown Application for a View

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether material admissible against one accused but not against others in a joint trial should be excluded because its unfairly prejudicial effect cannot be cured by warnings or directions to the jury.' 'Whether particular intercepted gaol calls, text messages, recorded voice messages and ERISP passages should be admitted, excised or rejected.' "Whether the Crown's proposed view of 6 Doncaster Street, Corrimal was necessary and should be allowed despite alleged prejudice, misleading effect, confusion or undue waste of time."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ruled item by item on the disputed evidence by balancing probative value against the risk of unfair prejudice and by considering whether any prejudice could be cured by jury directions. Some passages were admitted, some were excised, and others were rejected where the prejudice to a co-accused was too great to be reliably quarantined. The Crown's application for an inspection of 6 Doncaster Street, Corrimal was allowed because the layout of the premises was significant to the issues concerning Mr Spicer's knowledge or observations, and any prejudice from the restored premises was not unfair.

Court Disposition

Evidentiary rulings made; Crown's application for inspection of 6 Doncaster Street, Corrimal allowed; liberty to apply granted.

Orders

  • ["The words in Mr Spicer's 15 January 2012 gaol call were rejected as not amounting to an admission and as unfairly prejudicial." 'The words "It\'s going to be better than fuckin\' doing twenty-five" in Mr Spicer\'s 27 January 2012 gaol call were rejected.' 'In Ms Proud\'s 31 December 2011 gaol call, the words "BJ...