R v Fantakis; R v Woods [2018] NSWSC 1814

R v Fantakis; R v Woods [2018] NSWSC 1814

Only the evidence extracted at [12] and [13], relating to the accused discussing and apparently planning harm to the officer in charge of the investigation, is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. This evidence is deliberate, relates to a material issue, and is capable of supporting an inference that the accused acted with awareness of guilt. The probative value of this evidence is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, which can be addressed by proper jury directions. The remaining material is excluded as irrelevant or as carrying risks of unfair prejudice outweighing its probative value.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
Partially admitted
Legal Topics
['murder' 'accessory After the Fact' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'relevance' 'probative Value Vs Prejudice']
['criminal Law'] ['murder' 'accessory After the Fact' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'relevance' 'probative Value Vs Prejudice']

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 / Pre Trial Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether intercepted recorded conversations between the accused are admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt' 'Whether the probative value of the conversations is outweighed by unfair prejudice' 'Whether the disputed material satisfies the relevance test under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

Only the evidence extracted at [12] and [13], relating to the accused discussing and apparently planning harm to the officer in charge of the investigation, is admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt. This evidence is deliberate, relates to a material issue, and is capable of supporting an inference that the accused acted with awareness of guilt. The probative value of this evidence is not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, which can be addressed by proper jury directions. The remaining material is excluded as irrelevant or as carrying risks of unfair prejudice outweighing its probative value.

Court Disposition

Partially admitted

Orders

  • ['The evidence extracted at [12] and [13] (and agreed contextual surrounding conversation) is admitted' 'The balance of the material is excluded from evidence']