R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1357

R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1357

The first email had probative value because it provided context for the emails sent by John Dickson and for the attack on his credibility, so it could be tendered in re-examination. The second email had, at most, weak probative value and contained allegations and abusive material prejudicial to both accused, including an allegation that Anthony Dickson threatened to have John Dickson killed and derogatory statements about Michael Issakidis; its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value and it was rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Re Examination
Outcome
Tender in re-examination of the first email sent on 13 March 2010 was allowed; tender in re-examination of the second email sent on 13 March 2010 was disallowed.
Legal Topics
['re Examination' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'witness Credit']
['evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['re Examination' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'witness Credit']

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 Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Re Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted in re-examination to tender the first email sent on 13 March 2010 by Anthony Dickson to John Dickson.' 'Whether the Crown should be permitted in re-examination to tender the second email sent on 13 March 2010 by John Dickson in response.' 'Whether the probative value of the second email was outweighed by its prejudicial effect to the accused.']

Ratio Decidendi

The first email had probative value because it provided context for the emails sent by John Dickson and for the attack on his credibility, so it could be tendered in re-examination. The second email had, at most, weak probative value and contained allegations and abusive material prejudicial to both accused, including an allegation that Anthony Dickson threatened to have John Dickson killed and derogatory statements about Michael Issakidis; its prejudicial effect outweighed its probative value and it was rejected.

Court Disposition

Tender in re-examination of the first email sent on 13 March 2010 was allowed; tender in re-examination of the second email sent on 13 March 2010 was disallowed.

Orders

  • ['Tender in re-examination of first email sent on 13 March 2010 is allowed.' 'Tender in re-examination of second email sent on 13 March 2010 is disallowed.' 'The email of 13 March 2010 at 8.11am was to be marked MFI 21 and the other email MFI 22.']