R v Hickson (No. 3) [2019] NSWSC 1650

R v Hickson (No. 3) [2019] NSWSC 1650

The Prangnell evidence was inadmissible because the asserted fact was an alleged admission by Mr Hickson to Ms Morsman before and shortly after 22 December 1989, while the representation to Mr Prangnell was made between January and April 2017, about 27 years later, so the asserted fact was not fresh in Ms Morsman's memory for s 66(2). In any event, the evidence was credibility evidence directed only to supporting Ms Morsman's credibility, and no applicable exception to the credibility rule applied. The Ciregna expert evidence was also inadmissible because its probative value was slight and outweighed by unfair prejudice: the evidence about the accused's shoes pointed to Adidas type shoes...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings (murder Trial) / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Crown's applications refused.
Legal Topics
['credibility Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'expert Evidence' 'mark Evidence and Comparison' 'unfair Prejudice' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['credibility Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'prior Consistent Statements' 'expert Evidence' 'mark Evidence and Comparison' 'unfair Prejudice' 'admissibility of 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 Proceedings (murder Trial) / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown could lead evidence from Jeremy Prangnell of a previous representation by Tania Morsman about an alleged admission by the accused.' 'Whether the Prangnell evidence was admissible under the hearsay exceptions in ss 62 and 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the Prangnell evidence was inadmissible credibility evidence under ss 101A and 102 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the Crown could lead expert mark comparison evidence from Detective Sergeant Sharyn Ciregna about shoe sole impressions and scene impressions.' 'Whether the probative value of the expert shoe impression evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The Prangnell evidence was inadmissible because the asserted fact was an alleged admission by Mr Hickson to Ms Morsman before and shortly after 22 December 1989, while the representation to Mr Prangnell was made between January and April 2017, about 27 years later, so the asserted fact was not fresh in Ms Morsman's memory for s 66(2). In any event, the evidence was credibility evidence directed only to supporting Ms Morsman's credibility, and no applicable exception to the credibility rule applied. The Ciregna expert evidence was also inadmissible because its probative value was slight and outweighed by unfair prejudice: the evidence about the accused's shoes pointed to Adidas type shoes...

Court Disposition

Crown's applications refused.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's application to lead evidence from Jeremy Prangnell was refused." "The Crown's application to lead evidence from Detective Sergeant Sharyn Ciregna was refused."]