R v Colless (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 932

R v Colless (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 932

The leave factors in s 192 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) predominantly support granting leave for the Crown prosecutor to cross-examine its own witness about the prior inconsistent statement, and potential prejudice arising from references to prohibited drugs does not outweigh the importance of the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Issue
Outcome
Leave granted for the Crown prosecutor to cross-examine its own witness about the prior inconsistent statement.
Legal Topics
['evidence' 'cross Examination' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'leave to Cross Examine' 'prejudice to Accused']
['criminal Law'] ['evidence' 'cross Examination' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'leave to Cross Examine' 'prejudice to Accused']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the Crown prosecutor to cross-examine its own witness about a prior inconsistent statement under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Application of s 192 leave factors in granting leave for cross-examination' 'Potential prejudice to the accused arising from evidence of prohibited drug use by the witness']

Ratio Decidendi

The leave factors in s 192 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) predominantly support granting leave for the Crown prosecutor to cross-examine its own witness about the prior inconsistent statement, and potential prejudice arising from references to prohibited drugs does not outweigh the importance of the evidence.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for the Crown prosecutor to cross-examine its own witness about the prior inconsistent statement.

Orders

  • ['The Crown prosecutor is permitted to cross-examine the witness about the contradiction between his evidence in the witness box and his evidence on the voir dire.']