R v Peter James DAY [1] [2009] NSWDC 360

R v Peter James DAY [1] [2009] NSWDC 360

The accused did not demonstrate, either individually or cumulatively, special reasons in the interests of justice requiring Ms M to give evidence in court. The matters relied on were commonplace, inherent in CCTV evidence cases, or arose only because kidnapping-related prescribed sexual offences are less common than other District Court offences; the court did not accept that in-court evidence would better allow assessment of demeanour or promote truthfulness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application / Application for Complainant to Give Evidence in Court Rather Than by Closed Circuit Television; Ex Tempore Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['prescribed Sexual Offences' 'complainant Evidence' 'closed Circuit Television Evidence' 'special Reasons in the Interests of Justice']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['prescribed Sexual Offences' 'complainant Evidence' 'closed Circuit Television Evidence' 'special Reasons in the Interests of Justice']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Application / Application for Complainant to Give Evidence in Court Rather Than by Closed Circuit Television; Ex Tempore Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there were special reasons in the interests of justice under s 294B of the Criminal Procedure Act for the complainant's evidence not to be given by closed-circuit television." "Whether matters relied on by the accused, including the nature of the offence, the complainant's prior admitted lies to police, demeanour, and being face to face with the accused, justified requiring the complainant to give evidence in court."]

Ratio Decidendi

The accused did not demonstrate, either individually or cumulatively, special reasons in the interests of justice requiring Ms M to give evidence in court. The matters relied on were commonplace, inherent in CCTV evidence cases, or arose only because kidnapping-related prescribed sexual offences are less common than other District Court offences; the court did not accept that in-court evidence would better allow assessment of demeanour or promote truthfulness.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Application is refused']