R v Andrew Iskandar & R v Nita Iskandar (No. 2) [2011] NSWSC 1325

R v Andrew Iskandar & R v Nita Iskandar (No. 2) [2011] NSWSC 1325

Given the oral evidence of Mr Maiava was both unfavourable to the Crown and inconsistent with his prior written statement regarding the meaning of 'doing a job' and the request to 'get rid of a witness', the requirements of s 38 Evidence Act 1995 were satisfied and the Crown was permitted to cross-examine Mr Maiava in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 of his statement.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
['procedure' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'crown Cross Examination']
['criminal Law'] ['procedure' 'unfavourable Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'crown Cross Examination']

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 / Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown may cross-examine its own witness (Mr Maiava) pursuant to s 38 Evidence Act 1995 on the basis of his evidence being unfavourable or inconsistent with his prior statement.']

Ratio Decidendi

Given the oral evidence of Mr Maiava was both unfavourable to the Crown and inconsistent with his prior written statement regarding the meaning of 'doing a job' and the request to 'get rid of a witness', the requirements of s 38 Evidence Act 1995 were satisfied and the Crown was permitted to cross-examine Mr Maiava in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 of his statement.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • ["Crown's application to cross-examine in relation to paragraphs 7 and 8 of Mr Maiava's Statement is granted."]