Regina v MTN; Regina v CVH [2002] NSWSC 60

Regina v MTN; Regina v CVH [2002] NSWSC 60

Leave was granted because the witness gave evidence unfavourable to the Crown, did not make a genuine attempt to give evidence of matters within his knowledge, and gave evidence clearly inconsistent with his statement of 3 October 1999. The prior statement was important to the Crown case and significant to credibility and proof of culpability. Its probative value was not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, the discretions in ss 135 and 136 did not prevent admission, and the s 192(2) factors favoured granting leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 February 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Application by the Crown for Leave to Cross Examine Andre Nasr Under S 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 During Trial
Outcome
Leave to cross examine granted.
Legal Topics
['leave to Cross Examine Own Witness' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 S 192 Considerations']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['leave to Cross Examine Own Witness' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'probative Value and Unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 S 192 Considerations']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Application by the Crown for Leave to Cross Examine Andre Nasr Under S 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be granted leave under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine Andre Nasr, a witness it called.' 'Whether the witness gave evidence unfavourable to the Crown, failed to make a genuine attempt to give correct evidence, or gave evidence inconsistent with his statement of 3 October 1999.' 'Whether s 137, or the discretions in ss 135 and 136 of the Evidence Act 1995, prevented admission of the evidence sought to be adduced.' 'What effect s 192(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 has on the matters the Court must take into account when deciding whether to give leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the witness gave evidence unfavourable to the Crown, did not make a genuine attempt to give evidence of matters within his knowledge, and gave evidence clearly inconsistent with his statement of 3 October 1999. The prior statement was important to the Crown case and significant to credibility and proof of culpability. Its probative value was not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, the discretions in ss 135 and 136 did not prevent admission, and the s 192(2) factors favoured granting leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to cross examine granted.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine Andre Nasr pursuant to s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995.']