R v Gatt (No 9) [2018] NSWSC 501

R v Gatt (No 9) [2018] NSWSC 501

The Hudson Street evidence remained relevant and had real probative value when considered with the direct and circumstantial evidence, including evidence of Mr Gatt's connection to the gun. The proposition put to Mr Gatt in cross-examination did not create a relevant risk of unfair prejudice because he denied it, counsel's questions were not evidence, and the jury would be directed on the limited use of the evidence and the parties' cases. The s 137 balancing exercise did not justify exclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Application Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Exclude Evidence Already Admitted About the Hudson Street Shooting
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence refused.
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'circumstantial Evidence' '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 Proceeding / Application Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Exclude Evidence Already Admitted About the Hudson Street Shooting

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence about the Hudson Street shooting should be excluded from the jury's consideration under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether cross-examination putting to Mr Gatt that he fired the murder weapon at Hudson Street created a danger of unfair prejudice.' "Whether the Hudson Street shooting evidence retained probative value in the Crown's circumstantial case."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Hudson Street evidence remained relevant and had real probative value when considered with the direct and circumstantial evidence, including evidence of Mr Gatt's connection to the gun. The proposition put to Mr Gatt in cross-examination did not create a relevant risk of unfair prejudice because he denied it, counsel's questions were not evidence, and the jury would be directed on the limited use of the evidence and the parties' cases. The s 137 balancing exercise did not justify exclusion.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence refused.

Orders

  • ['Application to exclude evidence refused.']