R v Waldron (No. 2) [2024] NSWDC 158

R v Waldron (No. 2) [2024] NSWDC 158

The court held that the evidence in Ms Sugar's sworn deposition was relevant to the issue of whether the payments in question were bribes or for legitimate work. The representations were admitted under s65(2), s65(8), and the emails and statements as to intention of Mr Pulier and Mr Goldstein were admissible under s66A, all meeting the statutory requirements. Further, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s135 EA, finding the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Application During Trial
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Hearsay' 's65 Evidence Act' 's66 a Evidence Act' 'tax Minimisation' 'relevance of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Hearsay' 's65 Evidence Act' 's66 a Evidence Act' 'tax Minimisation' 'relevance of 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of previous representations by an unavailable witness (Ms Sugar) is admissible under s65 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether representations made to Ms Sugar by Mr Pulier and Mr Goldstein, and their emails expressing intentions, are admissible under s66A Evidence Act' 'Whether such evidence is relevant to facts in issue; specifically whether certain payments were bribes or legitimate for work done' 'Whether evidence should be excluded under s135 Evidence Act due to prejudice or lack of probative value']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the evidence in Ms Sugar's sworn deposition was relevant to the issue of whether the payments in question were bribes or for legitimate work. The representations were admitted under s65(2), s65(8), and the emails and statements as to intention of Mr Pulier and Mr Goldstein were admissible under s66A, all meeting the statutory requirements. Further, the court declined to exclude the evidence under s135 EA, finding the probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion, or waste of time.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • ['The application by the accused to adduce the evidence highlighted in Exhibit 2 on the voir dire is granted.' 'The highlighted portions of Exhibit 2 are to be extracted and become Exhibit 119 in the trial, to be filed on or before 5 April 2024.']