R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 93

R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 93

The anticipated answer had little, if any, probative value because its significance depended on an assumption or conclusion by Mr Carlino that had not been established or supported by evidence. The danger of unfair prejudice was that the jury might impermissibly reason that Mr Carlino's assumption or conclusion had a factual basis. Accordingly, the probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling During the Crown Case; Evidence in Chief Not Yet Concluded
Outcome
Question rejected
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice to the Accused' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice to the Accused' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']

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 / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling During the Crown Case; Evidence in Chief Not Yet Concluded

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to ask Joshua Michael Carlino a question anticipated to elicit words he said to the accused in a car near premises at Porpoise Crescent, Bligh Park.' 'Whether the anticipated evidence had probative value outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 137.']

Ratio Decidendi

The anticipated answer had little, if any, probative value because its significance depended on an assumption or conclusion by Mr Carlino that had not been established or supported by evidence. The danger of unfair prejudice was that the jury might impermissibly reason that Mr Carlino's assumption or conclusion had a factual basis. Accordingly, the probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Court Disposition

Question rejected

Orders

  • ['The question is rejected.']