R v Keli LANE [No 8] [2010] NSWSC 1535

R v Keli LANE [No 8] [2010] NSWSC 1535

The proposed cross-examination was relevant and probative because it could bear on Detective Gaut's accuracy and reliability, but it would only be permitted if confined to the mistaken belief and whether it arose from Duncan Gillies' statements to Irish police, without exploring other matters that could mislead or confuse the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Cross Examination/admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Crown objection not upheld in full; accused permitted to pursue the questioning subject to strict limits identified by the Court.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'relevance and Probative Value' 'evidence Act 1995 S 135' 'risk of Misleading or Confusing the Jury']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'relevance and Probative Value' 'evidence Act 1995 S 135' 'risk of Misleading or Confusing the Jury']

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 Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Cross Examination/admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused should be permitted to cross-examine Detective Gaut about a mistaken statement he made to the accused during an interview after the relevant part of the interview had been edited by consent.' 'Whether the proposed questioning was relevant and probative of issues in the trial or should be excluded because it might mislead or confuse the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-examination was relevant and probative because it could bear on Detective Gaut's accuracy and reliability, but it would only be permitted if confined to the mistaken belief and whether it arose from Duncan Gillies' statements to Irish police, without exploring other matters that could mislead or confuse the jury.

Court Disposition

Crown objection not upheld in full; accused permitted to pursue the questioning subject to strict limits identified by the Court.

Orders

  • ['The accused may ask the proposed questions provided the questioning is confined to the matters identified by the Court.' 'Neither party should explore in cross-examination or re-examination other possible reasons for the mistake in a way that could mislead or confuse the jury.']