R v Sigalla (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1918

R v Sigalla (No. 2) [2016] NSWSC 1918

The evidence was admissible because the accused's explanation of the relevant general ledger entry was plainly relevant and highly probative to count 14 as a broadly contemporaneous explanation of the accounting treatment of the $525,000 transfer; if true it could amount to an admission, and if untrue it could amount to an implied admission supporting an inference of dishonesty. Although the evidence carried a danger of unfair prejudice because it suggested other dishonest or criminal conduct, that danger did not outweigh its probative value and could be ameliorated by an appropriate jury direction if necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Ruling / Voir Dire Application by Accused to Exclude Evidence Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome
Evidence allowed; application to exclude under s 137 refused.
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'admissions' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'admissions' 'jury Directions']

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 Law Evidence Ruling / Voir Dire Application by Accused to Exclude Evidence Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence from [80] of Ms Wilkie's ASIC statement about a conversation with the accused should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused." 'Whether the use of the evidence should be limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was admissible because the accused's explanation of the relevant general ledger entry was plainly relevant and highly probative to count 14 as a broadly contemporaneous explanation of the accounting treatment of the $525,000 transfer; if true it could amount to an admission, and if untrue it could amount to an implied admission supporting an inference of dishonesty. Although the evidence carried a danger of unfair prejudice because it suggested other dishonest or criminal conduct, that danger did not outweigh its probative value and could be ameliorated by an appropriate jury direction if necessary.

Court Disposition

Evidence allowed; application to exclude under s 137 refused.

Orders

  • ['I allow evidence to be given by Ms Wilkie of the conversation in [80] of her statement to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission dated 28 February 2011.']