R v Manuel [2015] NSWSC 1562

R v Manuel [2015] NSWSC 1562

The post-offence conduct evidence was admissible because the objectively recorded narrative of Mr Manuel's movements, purchases, replacement of clothing and discarding of apparel could rationally assist the jury in assessing facts in issue, including his state of mind and intention when he struck Mr Rein. Although the evidence was not presently shown to amount to independent evidence of consciousness of guilt requiring an Edwards direction, it was prima facie relevant circumstantial evidence, and any prejudice from showing the accused shopping and going about his activities was not unfair prejudice within s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Preliminary Ruling Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Before Jury Empanelment
Outcome
The evidence of the accused's post-offending conduct is admissible.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Post Offence Conduct' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'murder and Manslaughter' 'self Defence' 'provocation' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Post Offence Conduct' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'murder and Manslaughter' 'self Defence' 'provocation' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']

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 Prosecution for Murder / Preliminary Ruling Under S 192 a Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Before Jury Empanelment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of Mr Manuel's post-offence conduct after leaving Mr Rein's home was relevant and admissible." 'Whether the evidence could be used as evidence of consciousness of guilt or an implied admission of guilt.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.' "Whether, in a case where murder, manslaughter, self-defence and provocation may arise, post-offence conduct can assist the jury in assessing the accused's intention at the time of the fatal acts."]

Ratio Decidendi

The post-offence conduct evidence was admissible because the objectively recorded narrative of Mr Manuel's movements, purchases, replacement of clothing and discarding of apparel could rationally assist the jury in assessing facts in issue, including his state of mind and intention when he struck Mr Rein. Although the evidence was not presently shown to amount to independent evidence of consciousness of guilt requiring an Edwards direction, it was prima facie relevant circumstantial evidence, and any prejudice from showing the accused shopping and going about his activities was not unfair prejudice within s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The evidence of the accused's post-offending conduct is admissible.

Orders

  • ["The evidence of the accused's post-offending conduct is admissible."]