R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1051

R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1051

It was not unfair to permit further questioning because the initial leading question by the accused's counsel was highly qualified, the accused later asserted in response to non-leading questions that email 2 followed and was partly a response to email 1, and the accused gave self-serving evidence inconsistent with the agreed true order of the emails.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Counsel for the Crown is entitled to ask further questions of the accused based on the evidence given by the accused in the parts of the examination-in-chief to which the Court referred.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination of Accused' 'examination in Chief' 'unfairness']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination of Accused' 'examination in Chief' 'unfairness']

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

Common Law Criminal / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it would be unfair for the Crown to be permitted to further cross-examine the accused on evidence given by the accused in examination-in-chief about the order and meaning of emails.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was not unfair to permit further questioning because the initial leading question by the accused's counsel was highly qualified, the accused later asserted in response to non-leading questions that email 2 followed and was partly a response to email 1, and the accused gave self-serving evidence inconsistent with the agreed true order of the emails.

Court Disposition

Counsel for the Crown is entitled to ask further questions of the accused based on the evidence given by the accused in the parts of the examination-in-chief to which the Court referred.

Orders

  • ['Counsel for the Crown is entitled to ask further questions of the accused based on the evidence given by the accused in the parts of the examination-in-chief to which the Court referred.']