R v Warren ROSS (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 2043

R v Warren ROSS (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 2043

The evidence of each child had significant probative value because it provided circumstantial support concerning the deceased's whereabouts and punishment regimes in the days leading to death. Although there were reliability, age-related cross-examination and possible contamination issues, reliability was principally for the jury and any unfairness could largely be addressed by directions or warnings. The probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Exclusion of Evidence / Interlocutory Application; Preliminary Ruling
Outcome
Exclusion of evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'child Witnesses' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'tendency Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'child Witnesses' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'tendency Evidence']

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 Law Exclusion of Evidence / Interlocutory Application; Preliminary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from Asana Deaves and Tandara Warrick-Deaves should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether the probative value of the child witnesses' evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused." 'Whether reliability, accuracy, age-related cross-examination difficulties and possible contamination justified exclusion of the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of each child had significant probative value because it provided circumstantial support concerning the deceased's whereabouts and punishment regimes in the days leading to death. Although there were reliability, age-related cross-examination and possible contamination issues, reliability was principally for the jury and any unfairness could largely be addressed by directions or warnings. The probative value of the evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Exclusion of evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ['The objection to the evidence of Asana Deaves and Tandara Warrick-Deaves was rejected.']