R v Rawlinson; R v Proud; R v Spicer [2014] NSWSC 336
There was no principled basis to change the usual order of cross-examination because neither the substance nor the fact of Ms Proud's unexpected evidence reliably supported Mr Spicer's concern that further similar evidence might emerge, and any need for additional cross-examination after the Crown could be considered if circumstances later warranted it.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 26 March 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Jury Trial / Procedural Ruling on Application to Change the Order of Cross Examination of a Witness
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['jury Trial' 'cross Examination' 'order of Questioning Witnesses' "court's Control Over Questioning of Witnesses" 'section 26(c) Evidence Act 1995']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial / Procedural Ruling on Application to Change the Order of Cross Examination of a Witness
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the Court should alter the usual order of cross-examination so that Mr Spicer could cross-examine Ms Proud after the Crown had done so.']
Ratio Decidendi
There was no principled basis to change the usual order of cross-examination because neither the substance nor the fact of Ms Proud's unexpected evidence reliably supported Mr Spicer's concern that further similar evidence might emerge, and any need for additional cross-examination after the Crown could be considered if circumstances later warranted it.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['Application dismissed']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment