R v Smith (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 769

R v Smith (No.2) [2014] NSWSC 769

The evidence had significant probative value and, although prejudicial to the accused, was not unfairly prejudicial. Any issue about whether the accused was affected by drugs when making the statement went to the weight and reliability of the evidence, which were matters for the jury. The Court therefore declined to exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence allowed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss 135, 137' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice to Accused']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 Ss 135, 137' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice to Accused']

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 / Interlocutory Application on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of a conversation between the accused and Ms Asprogiannis in paragraph 13 of Ms Asprogiannis' statement dated 23 January 2013 should be excluded under s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether the accused being allegedly affected by drugs at the time of the conversation made admission of the evidence unfairly prejudicial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence had significant probative value and, although prejudicial to the accused, was not unfairly prejudicial. Any issue about whether the accused was affected by drugs when making the statement went to the weight and reliability of the evidence, which were matters for the jury. The Court therefore declined to exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence.

Court Disposition

Evidence allowed.

Orders

  • ['Evidence in paragraph 13 of the statement of Ms Asprogiannis dated 23 January 2013 is allowed.']