R v JM (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 772

R v JM (No 3) [2024] NSWSC 772

Although the video was relevant, the Crown had not properly disclosed that it intended to rely on the particular video, the accused was only informed of that intention on the morning of trial, the relevant files were not readily accessible from the disclosed USB material, and significant other evidence was already available to the Crown on the issue sought to be raised; in those circumstances the evidence should not be admitted and was excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder and Wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm / Procedural Ruling at Commencement of Judge Alone Trial on Objection to Crown Video Evidence
Outcome
Evidence not admitted and is excluded.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'judge Alone Trial' 'pre Trial Disclosure' 'relevance' 'electronic Evidence' 'cellebrite Examination' 'self Defence' 'exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['murder' 'wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm' 'judge Alone Trial' 'pre Trial Disclosure' 'relevance' 'electronic Evidence' 'cellebrite Examination' 'self Defence' 'exclusion of Evidence']

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 Proceeding for Murder and Wounding With Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm / Procedural Ruling at Commencement of Judge Alone Trial on Objection to Crown Video Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown should be permitted to adduce a video file taken from the accused's phone following a Cellebrite examination where the accused was only informed on the morning of trial that the Crown intended to play it." "Whether the video was relevant to issues between the deceased and the accused and potentially to the accused's state of mind, including self-defence." "Whether the Crown's failure to disclose its intention to rely on the video warranted refusal to admit the evidence under s 146 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the video was relevant, the Crown had not properly disclosed that it intended to rely on the particular video, the accused was only informed of that intention on the morning of trial, the relevant files were not readily accessible from the disclosed USB material, and significant other evidence was already available to the Crown on the issue sought to be raised; in those circumstances the evidence should not be admitted and was excluded.

Court Disposition

Evidence not admitted and is excluded.

Orders

  • ['The video evidence is not admitted and is excluded.']