R v Keli LANE [No 16] [2010] NSWSC 1543

R v Keli LANE [No 16] [2010] NSWSC 1543

The 2000 material was not relevant, or had at most minimal relevance, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice arising from impermissible retrospective reasoning. The evidence was also obtained too late and in breach of earlier rulings limiting new Crown material, with no reasonable justification for departure from those rulings. The tender was therefore rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Tender of the 2000 material rejected.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'late Crown Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'late Crown 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 Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown's tender of 2000 material concerning the accused's participation in a water polo competition was relevant and admissible." 'Whether any probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.' 'Whether the Crown should be permitted to rely on a witness statement obtained at a late stage contrary to earlier rulings about new Crown material.']

Ratio Decidendi

The 2000 material was not relevant, or had at most minimal relevance, and any probative value was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice arising from impermissible retrospective reasoning. The evidence was also obtained too late and in breach of earlier rulings limiting new Crown material, with no reasonable justification for departure from those rulings. The tender was therefore rejected.

Court Disposition

Tender of the 2000 material rejected.

Orders

  • []