R v Beattie (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 395

R v Beattie (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 395

Although the alleged utterance at 4.30 AM had some probative value, it was not overly high because the crucial time was the assault, the statement was made an hour or so later in a different place and context, and the Crown already had evidence that the accused said much the same thing shortly after the assault. The danger that repeated evidence of threats to innocent families of police officers would inflame the jury against the accused outweighed that probative value, so s 137 mandated exclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Evidence Ruling / Objection to the Crown Leading Part of a Police Statement in a Murder Trial
Outcome
The Crown will not be permitted to lead the last sentence of paragraph five of voir dire exhibit A.
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' "threats to Police Officer's Family" 'mens Rea for Murder']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' "threats to Police Officer's Family" 'mens Rea for Murder']

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 Evidence Ruling / Objection to the Crown Leading Part of a Police Statement in a Murder Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the last sentence of paragraph five of Senior Constable McEwen's statement should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether the probative value of evidence that the accused threatened to find a police officer's wife and children at about 4.30 AM was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the alleged utterance at 4.30 AM had some probative value, it was not overly high because the crucial time was the assault, the statement was made an hour or so later in a different place and context, and the Crown already had evidence that the accused said much the same thing shortly after the assault. The danger that repeated evidence of threats to innocent families of police officers would inflame the jury against the accused outweighed that probative value, so s 137 mandated exclusion.

Court Disposition

The Crown will not be permitted to lead the last sentence of paragraph five of voir dire exhibit A.

Orders

  • ['The Crown will not be permitted to lead the last sentence of paragraph five of voir dire exhibit A.']