R v Lawrence (No. 3) [2003] NSWSC 655

R v Lawrence (No. 3) [2003] NSWSC 655

There is insufficient basis to conclude that the evidence Van Bommel would give is inadmissible under s 138 of the Evidence Act, notwithstanding any breach of Part 1C of the Crimes Act in relation to his detention. The illegality or impropriety did not materially taint the evidence, which was given voluntarily in exchange for a sentencing benefit, and the policy of the Act did not warrant exclusion. Further, there is no necessity for a Basha inquiry, as prior opportunities for cross-examination existed and the new material was either unreliable or did not justify further inquiry.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['admission of Evidence' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'conspiracy' 'co Conspirator Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['admission of Evidence' 'improperly Obtained Evidence' 'conspiracy' 'co Conspirator 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 / Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence of witness Van Bommel should be excluded under s 138 of the Evidence Act as improperly or unlawfully obtained' 'Whether a Basha inquiry should be held to allow further cross-examination of Van Bommel before he is called as a witness' 'Whether evidence from Van Bommel is so unreliable or tainted that it should be excluded to ensure a fair trial']

Ratio Decidendi

There is insufficient basis to conclude that the evidence Van Bommel would give is inadmissible under s 138 of the Evidence Act, notwithstanding any breach of Part 1C of the Crimes Act in relation to his detention. The illegality or impropriety did not materially taint the evidence, which was given voluntarily in exchange for a sentencing benefit, and the policy of the Act did not warrant exclusion. Further, there is no necessity for a Basha inquiry, as prior opportunities for cross-examination existed and the new material was either unreliable or did not justify further inquiry.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['The application to restrain the Crown from calling the witness Van Bommel or to reject his evidence under s 138 of the Evidence Act is refused.' 'No Basha inquiry to be held.']