R v Rawlinson; R v Proud; R v Spicer [2014] NSWSC 336

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.

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 Jury Trial / Procedural Ruling on Application to Change the Order of Cross Examination of a Witness

  1. 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']