R v Keli LANE [No 19] [2010] NSWSC 1546

R v Keli LANE [No 19] [2010] NSWSC 1546

The Crown should not be permitted to advance the suggested argument because it was contrary to the Court's earlier decision, the evidence fell well short of the conditions required for use as consciousness of guilt evidence, and the proposed submission would be unfairly prejudicial to the accused. The evidence was limited to context only so the jury could understand what the two people were talking about the next day.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Crown argument not permitted; order made under Evidence Act 1995 s 136 limiting use of the evidence to context only.
Legal Topics
['evidence Act 1995 S 136' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['evidence Act 1995 S 136' 'limitation on Use of Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice']

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 Proceeding / Procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to advance an argument that the accused had no real interest in the outcome of the investigation or was pretending to be interested.' 'Whether an order should be made under Evidence Act 1995 s 136 limiting the use of the evidence to context only.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown should not be permitted to advance the suggested argument because it was contrary to the Court's earlier decision, the evidence fell well short of the conditions required for use as consciousness of guilt evidence, and the proposed submission would be unfairly prejudicial to the accused. The evidence was limited to context only so the jury could understand what the two people were talking about the next day.

Court Disposition

Crown argument not permitted; order made under Evidence Act 1995 s 136 limiting use of the evidence to context only.

Orders

  • ['The Crown should not be permitted to advance the argument and suggested conclusion.' 'An order is made under Evidence Act 1995 s 136 limiting the use of the evidence to context only.' 'The evidence is to be used for no other purpose than to enable the jury to understand what the two people were talking about the...