R v Ahola [2013] NSWSC 698

R v Ahola [2013] NSWSC 698

The view was granted because the judge and jury would be present, the parties had a reasonable opportunity to attend, the accused had waived attendance in circumstances where attendance would likely be prejudicial, defence lawyers would attend, and inspection of the home and the route from the shop to the home would assist the jury to resolve factual issues and understand the evidence without unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading effect or unreasonable waste of time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Application for a View Pursuant to S 53 of Evidence Act 1995 / Interlocutory Application During Prosecution Case
Outcome
Application by Crown for a view is granted.
Legal Topics
['application for a View' 'inspection by Jury' "accused's Right to Attend" 'prejudice From Security Arrangements']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['application for a View' 'inspection by Jury' "accused's Right to Attend" 'prejudice From Security Arrangements']

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 Law Application for a View Pursuant to S 53 of Evidence Act 1995 / Interlocutory Application During Prosecution Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an inspection or view should be held under s 53 of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether the accused's absence, after waiving his right to attend because attendance would involve handcuffs, possible leg fetters and prison officers, prevented the view from being held." 'Whether the view would assist the jury in resolving issues of fact and understanding the evidence without being unfairly prejudicial, misleading, confusing or an unreasonable waste of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The view was granted because the judge and jury would be present, the parties had a reasonable opportunity to attend, the accused had waived attendance in circumstances where attendance would likely be prejudicial, defence lawyers would attend, and inspection of the home and the route from the shop to the home would assist the jury to resolve factual issues and understand the evidence without unfair prejudice, confusion, misleading effect or unreasonable waste of time.

Court Disposition

Application by Crown for a view is granted.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's application for a view is granted." 'The view is proposed to take place on Thursday 2 May 2013.']