R v Fletcher (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1692

R v Fletcher (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1692

Leave is granted to the Crown to cross-examine Ms Parker about the alleged prior inconsistent statement due to its importance, absence of unfairness, and lack of alternative procedure, after considering relevant statutory criteria.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Adam Troy Fletcher
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Leave to Cross Examine (procedural Ruling)
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Prior Inconsistent Statement, Evidence—s 38 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw), Procedural Rulings
Criminal Law Cross Examination Prior Inconsistent Statement Evidence—s 38 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Procedural Rulings

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Adam Troy Fletcher

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Leave to Cross Examine (procedural Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the Crown to cross-examine a witness about an alleged prior inconsistent statement under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is granted to the Crown to cross-examine Ms Parker about the alleged prior inconsistent statement due to its importance, absence of unfairness, and lack of alternative procedure, after considering relevant statutory criteria.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Crown to cross-examine Ms Parker about whether she has at any time made a prior inconsistent statement, namely to Ms Kay Henson as recounted in paragraph 20 of voir dire exhibit E.