R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 567

R v Purtill [2012] NSWSC 567

The challenged words in the intercepted conversation were capable of supporting both the inference favoured by the Crown and the inference advanced by the accused. That ambiguity did not make the evidence unfairly prejudicial merely because the Crown's interpretation, if accepted by the jury, would be prejudicial to the accused. The competing inferences should be left to the jury, which should consider the whole recorded conversation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Application Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 to Exclude Portions of an Intercepted and Recorded Telephone Conversation
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence dismissed
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'intercepted Telephone Conversations' 'ambiguous Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'intercepted Telephone Conversations' 'ambiguous 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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Application Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 to Exclude Portions of an Intercepted and Recorded Telephone Conversation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the objected portion of an intercepted telephone conversation should be rejected because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.' 'Whether evidence capable of more than one interpretation, including an interpretation adverse to the accused, is unfairly prejudicial for the purposes of s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged words in the intercepted conversation were capable of supporting both the inference favoured by the Crown and the inference advanced by the accused. That ambiguity did not make the evidence unfairly prejudicial merely because the Crown's interpretation, if accepted by the jury, would be prejudicial to the accused. The competing inferences should be left to the jury, which should consider the whole recorded conversation.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application to refuse to admit the evidence that the Crown proposes to adduce is rejected.']