R v Pratten (No 23) [2015] NSWSC 1132

R v Pratten (No 23) [2015] NSWSC 1132

Exhibit 2 was admissible because it was a summary of voluminous and arithmetically complex material within s 50(1), had been served on the accused, and any risk of unfair prejudice under s 137 could be eliminated or sufficiently ameliorated by directions explaining that the accuracy of the summary depended on acceptance of Ms Celona's analysis, acceptance of the amounts as income, and the absence of other allowable deductions, without reversing the Crown's onus.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution Involving Charges for Obtaining a Financial Advantage From the Commonwealth Dishonestly and by Deception Arising From the Lodging of Tax Returns / Voir Dire/procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility and Use of Exhibit 2
Outcome
Exhibit 2 on the voir dire, as amended in court, was allowed to be tendered and included in the Crown tender bundle.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Summary Documents' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 S 50(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 S 137' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Summary Documents' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 S 50(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 S 137' 'jury Directions']

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 Involving Charges for Obtaining a Financial Advantage From the Commonwealth Dishonestly and by Deception Arising From the Lodging of Tax Returns / Voir Dire/procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility and Use of Exhibit 2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Exhibit 2 on the voir dire was admissible as a summary of other documents under s 50(1) of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether Exhibit 2 should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because of unfair prejudice to the accused.' 'Whether any risk of impermissible reasoning by the jury could be eliminated or ameliorated by directions.']

Ratio Decidendi

Exhibit 2 was admissible because it was a summary of voluminous and arithmetically complex material within s 50(1), had been served on the accused, and any risk of unfair prejudice under s 137 could be eliminated or sufficiently ameliorated by directions explaining that the accuracy of the summary depended on acceptance of Ms Celona's analysis, acceptance of the amounts as income, and the absence of other allowable deductions, without reversing the Crown's onus.

Court Disposition

Exhibit 2 on the voir dire, as amended in court, was allowed to be tendered and included in the Crown tender bundle.

Orders

  • ['The document Exhibit 2 on the voir dire, as amended in court, is allowed to be tendered and to go into the Crown tender bundle.']