R v Gordon [2016] NSWSC 290

R v Gordon [2016] NSWSC 290

The Court ordered the inspection because, despite some changes to the scene over approximately two and a half years, the changes were not material in a way likely to mislead, no demonstration or experiment would occur, and the view could assist the jury to understand the spatial relationships and factual issues. Any risk of unfairness could be addressed by evidence, cross-examination, and appropriate jury directions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Murder; Application for a Jury View/inspection of the Scene / During Trial, After Voir Dire on the Crown's Application for a View
Outcome
Crown application for an inspection/view granted subject to conditions.
Legal Topics
['judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence' 'application for a View or Inspection of Crime Scene' 'potential Unfair Prejudice, Misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'circumstantial Murder Case' 'no Demonstration or Experiment at Inspection']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['judicial Discretion to Admit or Exclude Evidence' 'application for a View or Inspection of Crime Scene' 'potential Unfair Prejudice, Misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'circumstantial Murder Case' 'no Demonstration or Experiment at Inspection']

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 for Murder; Application for a Jury View/inspection of the Scene / During Trial, After Voir Dire on the Crown's Application for a View

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should attend an inspection of the scene at Collum Collum Station during the murder trial.' 'Whether changes to the scene over time and the proposed recreation of markers made the view unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing to the accused.' 'Whether safeguards could address any risk associated with the inspection.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court ordered the inspection because, despite some changes to the scene over approximately two and a half years, the changes were not material in a way likely to mislead, no demonstration or experiment would occur, and the view could assist the jury to understand the spatial relationships and factual issues. Any risk of unfairness could be addressed by evidence, cross-examination, and appropriate jury directions.

Court Disposition

Crown application for an inspection/view granted subject to conditions.

Orders

  • ['I order that an inspection of the scene at Collum Collum Station be carried out during the trial on Tuesday, 8 March 2016 subject to conditions which will be further discussed with Counsel before the view takes place.' 'I direct that Counsel confer with one another to attempt to agree upon the appropriate...