R v Lelikan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1934

R v Lelikan (No 2) [2018] NSWSC 1934

The application was refused because a limitation and the necessary jury direction could create an artificial distinction between truth and the accused's understanding of the truth, carrying a significant risk of undermining a central premise of the defence. Any prejudice to the Crown could be addressed by allowing the Crown to obtain further expert instructions and by cross-examining the accused about those matters.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Evidentiary Ruling / Crown Application During the Accused's Evidence in Chief for a Ruling Under S 136 of the Evidence Act Limiting the Use of Evidence
Outcome
The Crown's application for a ruling under s 136 of the Evidence Act limiting the use to be made of the accused's evidence concerning the trial of Abdullah Ocalan is refused.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' "accused's State of Knowledge or Understanding" 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'limiting Use of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' "accused's State of Knowledge or Understanding" '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 Trial Evidentiary Ruling / Crown Application During the Accused's Evidence in Chief for a Ruling Under S 136 of the Evidence Act Limiting the Use of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence given by the accused about his understanding of Abdullah Ocalan's arrest, trial and sentence should be limited in its use under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether allowing the evidence to be used for all purposes would be unfairly prejudicial to the Crown.' 'Whether limiting the evidence would unfairly prejudice the accused by undermining a central premise of his defence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because a limitation and the necessary jury direction could create an artificial distinction between truth and the accused's understanding of the truth, carrying a significant risk of undermining a central premise of the defence. Any prejudice to the Crown could be addressed by allowing the Crown to obtain further expert instructions and by cross-examining the accused about those matters.

Court Disposition

The Crown's application for a ruling under s 136 of the Evidence Act limiting the use to be made of the accused's evidence concerning the trial of Abdullah Ocalan is refused.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's application for a ruling limiting the use of the evidence is refused."]