R v Jones & Ors (No7) [2007] NSWSC 1158

R v Jones & Ors (No7) [2007] NSWSC 1158

Given the importance of John William Smith's credibility to the Crown case, the disputed evidence about whether members of his family or he had weapons, and the nature and significance of his evidence and demeanour, the 1992 conviction had substantial probative value within s 103 of the Evidence Act notwithstanding the elapsed time. Cross-examination was therefore permitted about the conviction, but not about the uncharged 1985 complaint, Noah Smith Snr's conviction, or the ambiguous committal hearing answer.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Ruling on Crown Objection to Proposed Cross Examination of Crown Witness John William Smith During Trial
Outcome
Objection overruled.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination of Crown Witness' 'antecedent Conduct' 'credibility Evidence' 'substantial Probative Value' 'prior Conviction']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination of Crown Witness' 'antecedent Conduct' 'credibility Evidence' 'substantial Probative Value' 'prior Conviction']

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 / Ruling on Crown Objection to Proposed Cross Examination of Crown Witness John William Smith During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the accused should be permitted to cross-examine Crown witness John William Smith about a 1992 conviction for making a false or misleading statement to obtain $500 in cash.' 'Whether the proposed cross-examination had substantial probative value within s 103 of the Evidence Act despite the time elapsed since the conviction.' "Whether cross-examination should extend to an earlier uncharged 1985 complaint, Noah Smith Snr's conviction for the same offence, or evidence given by the witness at the committal hearing."]

Ratio Decidendi

Given the importance of John William Smith's credibility to the Crown case, the disputed evidence about whether members of his family or he had weapons, and the nature and significance of his evidence and demeanour, the 1992 conviction had substantial probative value within s 103 of the Evidence Act notwithstanding the elapsed time. Cross-examination was therefore permitted about the conviction, but not about the uncharged 1985 complaint, Noah Smith Snr's conviction, or the ambiguous committal hearing answer.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled.

Orders

  • ['Cross-examination of John William Smith about the 1992 conviction permitted subject to restrictions.' 'Cross-examination not permitted about an earlier complaint said to date back to 1985 which did not result in charges.' 'Cross-examination not permitted about the fact that Noah Smith Snr was also convicted of the...