R v Jones & Ors (No6) [2007] NSWSC 1157

R v Jones & Ors (No6) [2007] NSWSC 1157

Evidence of the prior convictions of Crown witnesses is admissible as it has substantial probative value for assessing both the credibility and the conduct of the witnesses in relation to whether they were armed and the initial aggressors; the time lapse does not render the evidence inadmissible given the factual issues in contention.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Adam Jones; Accused: Samuel Jones; Accused: Elizabeth Jean Jones; Accused: Lydia Jones; Accused: Adam Samuel Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Decision on Evidentiary Objection
Outcome
Objection overruled
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Prior Convictions, Credibility of Witness, Self Defence, Provocation
Criminal Law Evidence Cross Examination Prior Convictions Credibility of Witness Self Defence Provocation

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Adam Jones

Accused

Samuel Jones

Accused

Elizabeth Jean Jones

Accused

Lydia Jones

Accused

Adam Samuel Jones

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Decision on Evidentiary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cross-examination of Crown witnesses on prior convictions should be permitted
  2. 2 Whether evidence of prior convictions possesses 'substantial probative value' pursuant to s 103 Evidence Act
  3. 3 Distinction between evidence relevant to credibility versus fact in issue

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of the prior convictions of Crown witnesses is admissible as it has substantial probative value for assessing both the credibility and the conduct of the witnesses in relation to whether they were armed and the initial aggressors; the time lapse does not render the evidence inadmissible given the factual issues in contention.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled