R v Vulovic (No. 3) [2012] NSWSC 211
The evidence of Mr Plavsic does not satisfy the threshold requirements for a s.165(1)(d) unreliability warning; the credibility and reliability of the witness were plain issues for the jury to assess without special guidance, and there were good reasons for not giving a warning, including risk of confusion and imbalance in the summing up.
- Parties
- Crown: Regina; Accused: Milija Vulovic
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 15 March 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Trial / Interlocutory Application Ruling Before Closing Addresses
- Outcome
- Application for s.165 Evidence Act warnings declined.
- Legal Topics
- Evidentiary Warnings, Unreliability Directions, Intoxication of Witness, Section 165 Evidence Act
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Crown
Milija Vulovic
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Interlocutory Application Ruling Before Closing Addresses
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether s.165(1)(d) Evidence Act 1995 unreliability warning should be given concerning evidence of Mr Plavsic
- 2 Whether jury requires warning regarding potential unreliability based on witness intoxication
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence of Mr Plavsic does not satisfy the threshold requirements for a s.165(1)(d) unreliability warning; the credibility and reliability of the witness were plain issues for the jury to assess without special guidance, and there were good reasons for not giving a warning, including risk of confusion and imbalance in the summing up.
Court Disposition
Application for s.165 Evidence Act warnings declined.
Orders
- No s.165(1)(d) warning is to be given concerning the evidence of Mr Plavsic.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment