R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 17) [2017] NSWSC 170

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 17) [2017] NSWSC 170

Mathieson was not available, the accused had a more than reasonable opportunity to cross-examine him at the committal and in fact did so extensively, the evidence had high probative value on the Crown's motive case, and any risks arising from the form or quality of the evidence could be addressed by jury directions and did not amount to unfair prejudice requiring exclusion under s. 137.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Ruling / Crown Application to Admit Evidence From Committal Proceedings Where Witness Unavailable
Outcome
Crown application allowed; Mathieson's evidence admitted.
Legal Topics
['hearsay Exception in Criminal Proceedings' 'unavailable Witness' 'committal Evidence' 'opportunity to Cross Examine' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay Exception in Criminal Proceedings' 'unavailable Witness' 'committal Evidence' 'opportunity to Cross Examine' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value']

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 Law Evidence Ruling / Crown Application to Admit Evidence From Committal Proceedings Where Witness Unavailable

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to rely upon evidence given by Paul Mathieson at the committal proceedings because he was not available to give evidence at trial.' 'Whether the accused had a reasonable or full opportunity to cross-examine Mathieson at the committal proceedings.' "Whether the probative value of Mathieson's evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s. 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mathieson was not available, the accused had a more than reasonable opportunity to cross-examine him at the committal and in fact did so extensively, the evidence had high probative value on the Crown's motive case, and any risks arising from the form or quality of the evidence could be addressed by jury directions and did not amount to unfair prejudice requiring exclusion under s. 137.

Court Disposition

Crown application allowed; Mathieson's evidence admitted.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Mathieson is allowed to be put before the jury.']