R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 19) [2017] NSWSC 169

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 19) [2017] NSWSC 169

Leave was granted because Hatfield's evidence in cross-examination raised an inconsistency with his prior police statement on an important credibility issue, the Crown sought leave in circumstances supported by s. 38 and the authorities, the mandatory considerations in ss. 38 and 192 weighed in favour of leave, the proposed cross-examination would not unduly lengthen the trial, it would be unfair to the Crown not to permit the issue to be pursued, and any danger of unfair prejudice to the accused could be addressed by allowing further cross-examination after the Crown's cross-examination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial; Procedural and Evidence Ruling / Crown Application for Leave Under S. 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Cross Examine a Witness Called by the Crown and Made Available for Cross Examination
Outcome
Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine the witness Hatfield under s. 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['cross Examination of Unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'credibility Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'crown Obligation to Conduct Trial Fairly']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination of Unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'credibility Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'crown Obligation to Conduct Trial Fairly']

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 and Evidence Ruling / Crown Application for Leave Under S. 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Cross Examine a Witness Called by the Crown and Made Available for Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be granted leave under s. 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to cross-examine Hatfield after calling him and making him available for cross-examination without asking questions in chief.' "Whether leave should extend to matters relevant only to Hatfield's credibility under s. 38(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether granting leave would create a danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, including under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because Hatfield's evidence in cross-examination raised an inconsistency with his prior police statement on an important credibility issue, the Crown sought leave in circumstances supported by s. 38 and the authorities, the mandatory considerations in ss. 38 and 192 weighed in favour of leave, the proposed cross-examination would not unduly lengthen the trial, it would be unfair to the Crown not to permit the issue to be pursued, and any danger of unfair prejudice to the accused could be addressed by allowing further cross-examination after the Crown's cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine the witness Hatfield under s. 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the Crown under s. 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']