R v Fesus (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1971

R v Fesus (No 3) [2015] NSWSC 1971

The absence of conversational detail is not unfairly prejudicial; relevance lies in the fact and timing of approaches, not specific acts proposed. Evidence is admissible if limited to these factors, with detail excluded to prevent unfair prejudice.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Steve Frank Fesus
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Statements of KB, KD, RG, and JN are admissible (with limitations as noted)
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Prejudice, Behaviour After Disappearance, Witness Statements
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Prejudice Behaviour After Disappearance Witness Statements

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Steve Frank Fesus

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Voir Dire Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements of KB, KD, RG, and JN are admissible
  2. 2 Whether the proposed evidence is unfairly prejudicial to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The absence of conversational detail is not unfairly prejudicial; relevance lies in the fact and timing of approaches, not specific acts proposed. Evidence is admissible if limited to these factors, with detail excluded to prevent unfair prejudice.

Court Disposition

Statements of KB, KD, RG, and JN are admissible (with limitations as noted)

Orders

  • Evidence of KB and KD admissible as to fact and timing, without salacious detail.
  • Objection to RG paragraph 13 noted; evidence not led by Crown.