R v Edwards (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1820

R v Edwards (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1820

Representations by Ms Sharon Edwards relating to the marriage, her relationship with Billy Mills, her social activities, future plans, and her statements regarding her granddaughter are admissible, no matter when they occurred from late 2013 to 14 March 2015, as they are relevant to issues of whether Ms Edwards voluntarily disappeared and the accused's motive and knowledge. Only representations that can be identified as specific statements are admissible; summaries or opinions of what Ms Edwards said are inadmissible.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: John Wallace Edwards
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Prior to Trial
Outcome
Objection dismissed in substantial part; specific categories of representations admissible
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Representations, First Hand Hearsay, Relevance, Prejudice, Murder Trial
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Representations First Hand Hearsay Relevance Prejudice Murder Trial

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

John Wallace Edwards

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial / Ruling on Evidentiary Objections Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations made by the deceased Ms Sharon Edwards to friends and others between late 2013 and 14 March 2015 are admissible as evidence in the murder trial of John Wallace Edwards

Ratio Decidendi

Representations by Ms Sharon Edwards relating to the marriage, her relationship with Billy Mills, her social activities, future plans, and her statements regarding her granddaughter are admissible, no matter when they occurred from late 2013 to 14 March 2015, as they are relevant to issues of whether Ms Edwards voluntarily disappeared and the accused's motive and knowledge. Only representations that can be identified as specific statements are admissible; summaries or opinions of what Ms Edwards said are inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Objection dismissed in substantial part; specific categories of representations admissible

Orders

  • Representations made by Ms Sharon Edwards in relation to specific topics are admissible. Parties may raise any unresolved objections regarding particular witness statements.