R v Jenkin (No 12) [2018] NSWSC 786

R v Jenkin (No 12) [2018] NSWSC 786

Leave was granted because the witness had not given evidence of the part of the alleged conversation that the car would be good to move a body in, despite repeated attempts by the Crown; the judge formed the impression that the witness was not making a genuine attempt to give evidence on a matter about which he might reasonably be supposed to have knowledge, and considered the relevant s 38(1) criteria and s 192 matters.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Common Law Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine Its Own Witness During Evidence in Chief
Outcome
Leave granted pursuant to s 38(1) of the Evidence Act.
Legal Topics
['leave to Cross Examine Own Witness' 'unfavourable Witness' 'inconsistent Statement' 'witness Not Making a Genuine Attempt to Give Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 NSW S 38(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 NSW S 192']
['evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['leave to Cross Examine Own Witness' 'unfavourable Witness' 'inconsistent Statement' 'witness Not Making a Genuine Attempt to Give Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 NSW S 38(1)' 'evidence Act 1995 NSW S 192']

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

Common Law Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine Its Own Witness During Evidence in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 38(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 NSW for the Crown to cross-examine its own witness Paul Lincoln.' "Whether the witness's evidence was unfavourable to the Crown, inconsistent with his earlier police statement, or showed he was not making a genuine attempt to give evidence about a matter within his knowledge."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the witness had not given evidence of the part of the alleged conversation that the car would be good to move a body in, despite repeated attempts by the Crown; the judge formed the impression that the witness was not making a genuine attempt to give evidence on a matter about which he might reasonably be supposed to have knowledge, and considered the relevant s 38(1) criteria and s 192 matters.

Court Disposition

Leave granted pursuant to s 38(1) of the Evidence Act.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted pursuant to s 38(1) of the Evidence Act.']