R v Weaver (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 606

R v Weaver (No 8) [2022] NSWSC 606

The first two sentences of paragraph 21 of Mr Griggs' statement and the statement that Ms Howlett appeared very frightened satisfied the conditions for lay opinion evidence under s 78; the remaining disputed statements were secondary conclusions or speculation. The admissible parts were not excluded under ss 135 or 137.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling / Voir Dire Admissibility Ruling During Criminal Trial
Outcome
Admission of the disputed passage allowed in part.
Legal Topics
['opinion Evidence' 'lay Opinion' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'discretionary and Mandatory Exclusion of Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['opinion Evidence' 'lay Opinion' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'discretionary and Mandatory 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

Procedural Ruling / Voir Dire Admissibility Ruling During Criminal Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether parts of paragraph 21 of Mr Griggs' statement were admissible as lay opinion evidence under s 78 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether the admissible parts should be excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The first two sentences of paragraph 21 of Mr Griggs' statement and the statement that Ms Howlett appeared very frightened satisfied the conditions for lay opinion evidence under s 78; the remaining disputed statements were secondary conclusions or speculation. The admissible parts were not excluded under ss 135 or 137.

Court Disposition

Admission of the disputed passage allowed in part.

Orders

  • ['Allow the admission of the disputed passage to the extent that the first two sentences of paragraph 21 and the statement that Ms Howlett appeared very frightened are admissible.' 'The admitted matters are not excluded by ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']