R v LN; R v AW (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 154

R v LN; R v AW (No. 3) [2017] NSWSC 154

The impugned part of the conversation was admissible because it was relevant and probative of LN's thought processes and indicated intention to kill Joseph, matters bearing on the Crown's circumstantial case and proof of intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Although strangulation was not alleged to have occurred, that could be made clear to the jury and the reference would not distract the jury so as to warrant exclusion under s.137 Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Part of Recorded Conversation
Outcome
Evidence of conversation allowed.
Legal Topics
['murder Trial' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect' 'recorded Police Interview' 'tendency Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder Trial' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect' 'recorded Police Interview' 'tendency 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 Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Admissibility of Part of Recorded Conversation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether part of a recorded walk-through interview in which LN described thoughts of killing Joseph was relevant.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s.137 Evidence Act 1995 because its probative value was outweighed by prejudicial effect.']

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned part of the conversation was admissible because it was relevant and probative of LN's thought processes and indicated intention to kill Joseph, matters bearing on the Crown's circumstantial case and proof of intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm. Although strangulation was not alleged to have occurred, that could be made clear to the jury and the reference would not distract the jury so as to warrant exclusion under s.137 Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Evidence of conversation allowed.

Orders

  • ['The part of the conversation at page 57 was admitted in evidence.']