R v Turnbull (No. 12) [2016] NSWSC 784
Mr Spark's proposed evidence was not shown to be relevant or admissible because it concerned events occurring several days after 29 July 2014, when the Accused was already in custody; there was already evidence that bulldozing of unburnt material was occurring on the relevant date; and Mr Spark did not assert that the material being bulldozed was native vegetation within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 May 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Murder Trial / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Defence Objection to Proposed Crown Evidence
- Outcome
- Evidence not allowed.
- Legal Topics
- ['murder Trial' 'relevance of Evidence' 'post Offence Observations' 'land Clearing']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Procedural Evidentiary Ruling on Defence Objection to Proposed Crown Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether proposed evidence from Phillip Spark about observations of bulldozing and land clearing on 4 August 2014 was relevant and admissible in the accused's murder trial."]
Ratio Decidendi
Mr Spark's proposed evidence was not shown to be relevant or admissible because it concerned events occurring several days after 29 July 2014, when the Accused was already in custody; there was already evidence that bulldozing of unburnt material was occurring on the relevant date; and Mr Spark did not assert that the material being bulldozed was native vegetation within the meaning of the Native Vegetation Act 2003.
Court Disposition
Evidence not allowed.
Orders
- ['The proposed evidence of Phillip Spark is not allowed.']
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