R v Jones & Ors (No4) [2007] NSWSC 1154

R v Jones & Ors (No4) [2007] NSWSC 1154

The disputed discussion about a possible sentence had no or little probative value: Ms Smith's view that 12 years would be too light was irrelevant, the participants' views were speculative, and the reference to 12 years was ambiguous. Conversely, the material was capable of causing unfair prejudice by encouraging the jury to speculate about sentence and distracting it from deciding whether the appropriate verdict was murder or manslaughter. The danger of unfair prejudice outweighed any probative value, so the objection was upheld.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Objection to Admissibility of Parts of Recorded Conversations Between Ellen Smith and Adam Jones on 20 October 2005
Outcome
Objection upheld.
Legal Topics
['lawfully Intercepted Telephone Conversations' 'listening Device Evidence' 'admissions' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['lawfully Intercepted Telephone Conversations' 'listening Device Evidence' 'admissions' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act S 137']

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 Proceeding / Objection to Admissibility of Parts of Recorded Conversations Between Ellen Smith and Adam Jones on 20 October 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the disputed parts of the recorded conversation were relevant and admissible as an admission.' 'Whether the evidence adduced by the prosecutor should be refused under s 137 of the Evidence Act because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed discussion about a possible sentence had no or little probative value: Ms Smith's view that 12 years would be too light was irrelevant, the participants' views were speculative, and the reference to 12 years was ambiguous. Conversely, the material was capable of causing unfair prejudice by encouraging the jury to speculate about sentence and distracting it from deciding whether the appropriate verdict was murder or manslaughter. The danger of unfair prejudice outweighed any probative value, so the objection was upheld.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld.

Orders

  • ['Objection upheld.']