R v Grogan & Slacke (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1191

R v Grogan & Slacke (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1191

The evidence was excluded because, although Mr Henry's statements identifying "Jason" as the alleged assailant had significant probative value in the circumstantial case, the statement that he had been "bashed" was emotive and ambiguous. The jury might misuse it to infer a considerable level of violence and intention to cause serious injury, matters critical to the charges, and directions would not adequately remove that unfair prejudice. The isolated statement "Jason did it" could not fairly be admitted because, taken out of the conversation, it would leave unclear what "it" referred to.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Evidence
Outcome
Evidence excluded
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'maker Unavailable' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 65' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'maker Unavailable' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 65' 'unfair Prejudice' '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 Ruling on Objection to Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of statements made by Mr Alan Henry to his former wife and daughter after the alleged assault was admissible under s 65(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded because its probative value was outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the statements that Mr Henry had been "bashed" by "Jason" were unfairly prejudicial given the ambiguity and emotive nature of the term "bashed" and the unavailability of Mr Henry for cross-examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was excluded because, although Mr Henry's statements identifying "Jason" as the alleged assailant had significant probative value in the circumstantial case, the statement that he had been "bashed" was emotive and ambiguous. The jury might misuse it to infer a considerable level of violence and intention to cause serious injury, matters critical to the charges, and directions would not adequately remove that unfair prejudice. The isolated statement "Jason did it" could not fairly be admitted because, taken out of the conversation, it would leave unclear what "it" referred to.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded

Orders

  • ['The whole of the conversation between Ms Susan Henry and Mr Alan Henry on 15 February 2012, and any subsequent conversations with her or others in which he made similar assertions, are excluded.']