R v Klein (No.6) [2008] NSWSC 338

R v Klein (No.6) [2008] NSWSC 338

The witness's Crime Commission evidence, read as a whole, did not amount to an unequivocal acceptance that the relevant date was 15 February 2001 and therefore could not fairly be described as a prior inconsistent statement. Even if that conclusion were wrong, the ambiguity of the earlier evidence and the likelihood that further cross-examination would not materially alter the witness's position but would add unduly to the length of the hearing justified declining leave under s 192.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Ruling in Criminal Proceedings / Application by the Crown for Leave Pursuant to S 38 of the Evidence Act to Cross Examine Pieta Lane
Outcome
Objection upheld.
Legal Topics
['prior Inconsistent Statement' 'cross Examination of Own Witness' 'leave Under S 38 of the Evidence Act' 'discretion Under S 192 of the Evidence Act']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['prior Inconsistent Statement' 'cross Examination of Own Witness' 'leave Under S 38 of the Evidence Act' 'discretion Under S 192 of the Evidence Act']

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 and Other Ruling in Criminal Proceedings / Application by the Crown for Leave Pursuant to S 38 of the Evidence Act to Cross Examine Pieta Lane

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be granted leave pursuant to s 38 of the Evidence Act to cross-examine Pieta Lane on the basis of an alleged prior inconsistent statement.' "Whether the witness's evidence before the Crime Commission on 2 August 2001 amounted to a prior inconsistent statement." 'Whether leave should be declined having regard to s 192 of the Evidence Act because further cross-examination would be likely to add unduly to the length of the hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The witness's Crime Commission evidence, read as a whole, did not amount to an unequivocal acceptance that the relevant date was 15 February 2001 and therefore could not fairly be described as a prior inconsistent statement. Even if that conclusion were wrong, the ambiguity of the earlier evidence and the likelihood that further cross-examination would not materially alter the witness's position but would add unduly to the length of the hearing justified declining leave under s 192.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld.

Orders

  • ['Objection upheld.']