R v Officer A [2023] NSWSC 1033
The accused did not identify any additional matter warranting departure from the earlier rulings admitting the cell CCTV footage and the Lismore Base Hospital CCTV footage, and the judge was not satisfied that the interests of justice required those rulings not to bind. However, the evidence of the accused's participation in Scenario PT03 was excluded because, despite some probative value, it concerned the different firearms authority in cl 303(1)(a) and created an appreciable risk that the jury would confuse that authority with the authority under cl 303(1)(b)(i) governing discharge of a firearm to prevent escape; its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 August 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Proceeding on Indictment for Murder / Application Pending Retrial to Revisit Evidentiary Rulings Made Prior to or During the First Trial
- Outcome
- The evidence of the accused's participation in Scenario PT03 is excluded. The application to revisit the rulings in R v Officer A (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 139, R v Officer A (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1395 and R v Officer A (unreported, 20 October 2022) is otherwise dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- ['murder' 'pending Retrial' 'pre Trial Orders' 'evidentiary Rulings' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'correctional Officer Authority to Discharge Firearms' 'escaping Inmate']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding on Indictment for Murder / Application Pending Retrial to Revisit Evidentiary Rulings Made Prior to or During the First Trial
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether it would not be in the interests of justice for prior evidentiary rulings to remain binding under s 130A(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW).' 'Whether CCTV footage depicting the accused prodding Mr Johnstone in the cells with his foot should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether evidence of the accused's participation in Scenario PT03 should be excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or because it might be misleading or confusing." 'Whether CCTV footage of the accused taking a telephone call outside Lismore Base Hospital shortly before the escape was relevant or should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']
Ratio Decidendi
The accused did not identify any additional matter warranting departure from the earlier rulings admitting the cell CCTV footage and the Lismore Base Hospital CCTV footage, and the judge was not satisfied that the interests of justice required those rulings not to bind. However, the evidence of the accused's participation in Scenario PT03 was excluded because, despite some probative value, it concerned the different firearms authority in cl 303(1)(a) and created an appreciable risk that the jury would confuse that authority with the authority under cl 303(1)(b)(i) governing discharge of a firearm to prevent escape; its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice and...
Court Disposition
The evidence of the accused's participation in Scenario PT03 is excluded. The application to revisit the rulings in R v Officer A (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 139, R v Officer A (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1395 and R v Officer A (unreported, 20 October 2022) is otherwise dismissed.
Orders
- ["The evidence of the accused's participation in Scenario PT03 is excluded." 'The application to revisit the rulings in R v Officer A (No 5) [2022] NSWSC 139, R v Officer A (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1395 and R v Officer A (unreported, 20 October 2022) is otherwise dismissed.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment