R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 13) [2015] NSWSC 1543

R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 13) [2015] NSWSC 1543

Leave was granted because the proposed topics included sufficient bases of inconsistency or unfavourability in A1's evidence, the material concerning A1's conversations had probative value that was not outweighed by prejudicial effect, and limiting the use of transcripts and withholding recordings and transcript copies from the jury would minimise prejudice and avoid undue use of trial time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Procedural Ruling / Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine Crown Witness A1 Under S.38 Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine A1 on certain topics under s.38 Evidence Act 1995, subject to limits on the manner of use of transcripts and recordings.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination of Own Witness' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'discretion to Grant Leave' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination of Own Witness' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statements' 'discretion to Grant Leave' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions']

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 Trial Procedural Ruling / Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine Crown Witness A1 Under S.38 Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be granted leave under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine A1 on specified topics and recordings or transcripts.' 'Whether discretionary considerations under ss.38 and 192, and s.137 Evidence Act 1995, precluded or limited the proposed cross-examination.' 'Whether the use of conversations involving A1 and non-witnesses concerning the term "khatna" and KM\'s role in the Dawoodi Bohra community would be unduly prejudicial.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the proposed topics included sufficient bases of inconsistency or unfavourability in A1's evidence, the material concerning A1's conversations had probative value that was not outweighed by prejudicial effect, and limiting the use of transcripts and withholding recordings and transcript copies from the jury would minimise prejudice and avoid undue use of trial time.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine A1 on certain topics under s.38 Evidence Act 1995, subject to limits on the manner of use of transcripts and recordings.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted with respect to Items 1, 2 and 3 in MFI58 by reference to three recordings in evidence, with the Crown to seek to use transcripts first without playing recordings.' 'Leave granted with respect to Item 7, Exhibit AU.' 'Leave granted to cross-examine A1 on the basis of inconsistency or unfavourability,...