R v RJ (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 157

R v RJ (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 157

The proposed cross-examination was refused because the representations that the complainant used to lie and that her story did not add up were unsupported opinions with no adequate foundation; no exception to the opinion rule was established; the evidence had little probative value; and admission would leave the jury with a bare, unsubstantiated opinion about the complainant's credibility, creating unfair prejudice that outweighed any probative value.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural Ruling in Trial / Accused's Application for Leave to Further Cross Examine Crown Witness PS Before the Jury Following a Voir Dire
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'credibility Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Opinion Evidence' 'cross Examination' 'credibility Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']

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 in Trial / Accused's Application for Leave to Further Cross Examine Crown Witness PS Before the Jury Following a Voir Dire

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused should be permitted to cross-examine PS before the jury about a Snapchat exchange with JE on or about 8 September 2021 concerning the complainant allegedly lying and the complainant's story not adding up." 'Whether the proposed evidence was inadmissible opinion evidence under s 76 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and whether any exception such as s 78 applied.' 'Whether the proposed evidence should be refused under s 135 because its admission would be unfairly prejudicial and would outweigh any probative value.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-examination was refused because the representations that the complainant used to lie and that her story did not add up were unsupported opinions with no adequate foundation; no exception to the opinion rule was established; the evidence had little probative value; and admission would leave the jury with a bare, unsubstantiated opinion about the complainant's credibility, creating unfair prejudice that outweighed any probative value.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ["Counsel for the accused's proposed line of inquiry for further cross-examination of PS is refused."]