R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 175

R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 175

The probative value of the conversation between Mr Davies and Mr Tilley, as part of the circumstantial evidence regarding the accused's conduct after the alleged offence, is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and is therefore admissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admitted
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']

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 / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the probative value of the conversation between Mr Davies and Mr Tilley is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused and should therefore be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The probative value of the conversation between Mr Davies and Mr Tilley, as part of the circumstantial evidence regarding the accused's conduct after the alleged offence, is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), and is therefore admissible.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed; evidence admitted

Orders

  • ['The probative value of the conversation between Mr Davies and Mr Tilley is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to any of the accused in this trial']