R v Droudis (No. 5) [2016] NSWSC 1211

R v Droudis (No. 5) [2016] NSWSC 1211

There was a direct contrast between Mr Aspros' evidence in court that he could not remember when he last saw his sister and his statement shortly before outside court to Crown representatives that it was probably the Friday or Saturday because they go to Flemington Markets. That contrast constituted a prior inconsistent statement for s.38(1)(c) Evidence Act 1995 and also provided a foundation under s.38(1)(b). Having considered s.192, the Court granted the Crown leave to cross-examine on that confined topic.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine a Witness Under S.38 Evidence Act 1995 During Evidence in Chief
Outcome
Leave granted to Crown to cross-examine witness under s.38 Evidence Act 1995.
Legal Topics
['murder Trial' 'cross Examination of Own Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'alibi Evidence' 'witness Memory and Reliability']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder Trial' 'cross Examination of Own Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'alibi Evidence' 'witness Memory and Reliability']

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 Murder Trial / Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine a Witness Under S.38 Evidence Act 1995 During Evidence in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be granted leave under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine its witness John Aspros.' "Whether Mr Aspros' evidence that he could not remember when he last saw the Accused was inconsistent with a prior statement made to Crown representatives shortly before giving evidence." 'Whether the requirements of s.192 Evidence Act 1995 supported granting leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was a direct contrast between Mr Aspros' evidence in court that he could not remember when he last saw his sister and his statement shortly before outside court to Crown representatives that it was probably the Friday or Saturday because they go to Flemington Markets. That contrast constituted a prior inconsistent statement for s.38(1)(c) Evidence Act 1995 and also provided a foundation under s.38(1)(b). Having considered s.192, the Court granted the Crown leave to cross-examine on that confined topic.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to Crown to cross-examine witness under s.38 Evidence Act 1995.

Orders

  • ['The Crown is granted leave under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine John Aspros with respect to the particular matters identified in the judgment.']