R v Clark [No 1] [2008] NSWSC 820

R v Clark [No 1] [2008] NSWSC 820

The recorded conversation was relevant in the ways identified by the Crown, and although some unfair prejudice arose from references to discreditable associations and the accused being unable to explain every aspect of his state of mind, the conversation had significant probative value. With the significant deletions proposed by the Crown, including removal of references to Michael Clark's criminal history, its probative value significantly outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings for Murder With an Alternative Charge of Accessory After the Fact / Voir Dire Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Listening Device Conversation
Outcome
Conversation should be admitted with agreed deletions (as per Exhibit E on the Voir Dire)
Legal Topics
['listening Device Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Practice and Procedure'] ['listening Device Evidence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'probative Value']

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 Proceedings for Murder With an Alternative Charge of Accessory After the Fact / Voir Dire Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Listening Device Conversation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the recorded listening device conversation was relevant to issues in the trial.' 'Whether the conversation should be excluded under s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 because of unfair prejudice to the accused.' "Whether agreed deletions adequately addressed references to the accused's criminal history and other potentially prejudicial material."]

Ratio Decidendi

The recorded conversation was relevant in the ways identified by the Crown, and although some unfair prejudice arose from references to discreditable associations and the accused being unable to explain every aspect of his state of mind, the conversation had significant probative value. With the significant deletions proposed by the Crown, including removal of references to Michael Clark's criminal history, its probative value significantly outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice.

Court Disposition

Conversation should be admitted with agreed deletions (as per Exhibit E on the Voir Dire)

Orders

  • ['The conversation recorded by listening device at 9.10 am on Wednesday 13 July 2005 is admitted with agreed deletions as per Exhibit E on the Voir Dire.']