R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 758

R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 758

Although the direct relevance of the question had not yet been established, the Crown might establish by other evidence an inference that Mr Dawson knew of Mr Silkman's criminal connections, and the answer to the question could form part of that evidence. Because that prospect was not far-fetched, remote or fanciful, the question was admissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Objection
Outcome
The question asked of Mr Silkman is admissible.
Legal Topics
['murder Trial' 'relevance' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'evidentiary Objection']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder Trial' 'relevance' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'evidentiary Objection']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a question to Mr Silkman about whether he knew who Paul Hayward's brother-in-law was was relevant and admissible in the proceedings."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the direct relevance of the question had not yet been established, the Crown might establish by other evidence an inference that Mr Dawson knew of Mr Silkman's criminal connections, and the answer to the question could form part of that evidence. Because that prospect was not far-fetched, remote or fanciful, the question was admissible.

Court Disposition

The question asked of Mr Silkman is admissible.

Orders

  • ['The question asked of Mr Silkman is admissible.']