R v WE (No.12) [2020] NSWSC 146

R v WE (No.12) [2020] NSWSC 146

The court held that the proposed additional re-examination regarding disciplinary incidents at other schools did not arise out of the cross-examination as required by s 39 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), because the cross-examination focused only on the accused's conduct at East Hills Boys High School while under Mr Elgood's supervision.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary/procedural Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Proposed re-examination on matters outside scope of cross-examination not permitted
Legal Topics
['re Examination of Witnesses' 'scope of Re Examination' 'limits Under Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['re Examination of Witnesses' 'scope of Re Examination' 'limits Under Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']

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 / Evidentiary/procedural Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether proposed re-examination by the Crown arose out of cross-examination as contemplated by s 39 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the proposed additional re-examination regarding disciplinary incidents at other schools did not arise out of the cross-examination as required by s 39 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), because the cross-examination focused only on the accused's conduct at East Hills Boys High School while under Mr Elgood's supervision.

Court Disposition

Proposed re-examination on matters outside scope of cross-examination not permitted

Orders

  • ['Re-examination of Mr Elgood limited to incidents raised in cross-examination at East Hills Boys High School; re-examination regarding incidents at other schools not allowed.']