R v Xie (No. 14) [2014] NSWSC 1979

R v Xie (No. 14) [2014] NSWSC 1979

The objection was overruled because, although a Crown opening must not become an argumentative closing address and must avoid intemperate or excessive language, the complexity and length of this murder trial required the Crown to give the jury some meaningful articulation of the Crown case by reference to the evidence expected to be called and how the Crown said that evidence fitted together. That approach was not inconsistent with R v MM, provided the jury was reminded that the opening was not evidence and that factual findings and conclusions were for the jury after hearing the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Ruling During Crown Opening Address on the Accused's Objection to Aspects of the Crown Opening
Outcome
Objection to aspects of Crown opening overruled.
Legal Topics
['crown Opening Address' 'defence Objection to Crown Opening' 'permissible Scope and Content of Opening Address' 'section 159 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'jury Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['crown Opening Address' 'defence Objection to Crown Opening' 'permissible Scope and Content of Opening Address' 'section 159 Criminal Procedure Act 1986' 'jury Trial']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder Trial / Ruling During Crown Opening Address on the Accused's Objection to Aspects of the Crown Opening

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether aspects of the Crown opening address exceeded the permissible scope of an opening by containing argument or submissions about the validity of the Crown case.' 'Whether, in a lengthy and complex murder trial, the Crown may articulate how it puts its case by reference to the evidence expected to be called.' 'Whether the Court should remind or restrain the Crown in relation to the content and tone of the opening address.']

Ratio Decidendi

The objection was overruled because, although a Crown opening must not become an argumentative closing address and must avoid intemperate or excessive language, the complexity and length of this murder trial required the Crown to give the jury some meaningful articulation of the Crown case by reference to the evidence expected to be called and how the Crown said that evidence fitted together. That approach was not inconsistent with R v MM, provided the jury was reminded that the opening was not evidence and that factual findings and conclusions were for the jury after hearing the evidence.

Court Disposition

Objection to aspects of Crown opening overruled.

Orders

  • ['The objection to aspects of the Crown opening was overruled.' 'The Court indicated it would remind the jury that the Crown opening was based on evidence anticipated to be called and that whether the evidence supported the matters relied upon by the Crown would be for the jury to determine.']