R v Orcher [2016] NSWSC 627

R v Orcher [2016] NSWSC 627

The objection was upheld because the prior consistent statement did not fit within the requirements of s 108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act and, alternatively, the evidence should be excluded under s 137 due to significant prejudicial effect.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Lyle Neil Orcher
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Objection upheld
Legal Topics
Evidence, Procedure
Criminal Law Evidence Procedure

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Lyle Neil Orcher

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown should be permitted to lead a prior consistent statement in re-examination under s 108 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the prior statement fits within s 108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act
  3. 3 Whether the evidence should be excluded pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act due to prejudicial effect

Ratio Decidendi

The objection was upheld because the prior consistent statement did not fit within the requirements of s 108(3)(b) of the Evidence Act and, alternatively, the evidence should be excluded under s 137 due to significant prejudicial effect.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld

Orders

  • The objection to the question is upheld.