R v Matthew James Morris [2008] NSWDC 27

R v Matthew James Morris [2008] NSWDC 27

Leave was granted because the proposed expert evidence was of central importance to Count 6 and to the complainant's credit, making the circumstances special and exceptional. The need to call the evidence was not reasonably foreseeable in the relevant sense because the Crown was entitled to rely on counsel for the accused's statement in open court that expert evidence about the video would be led in the accused's case. The resulting delay did not create incurable prejudice to the accused and could be addressed by directions to the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Crown Application for Leave to Re Open Crown Case After Close of Accused's Case; Accused Application to Discharge Jury
Outcome
Crown application granted; accused application refused.
Legal Topics
['re Opening Crown Case' 'evidence in Reply' 'expert Evidence' 'mobile Phone Video Evidence' 'sexual Assault Trial' 'jury Discharge' 'prejudice to Accused']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['re Opening Crown Case' 'evidence in Reply' 'expert Evidence' 'mobile Phone Video Evidence' 'sexual Assault Trial' 'jury Discharge' 'prejudice to Accused']

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 Trial / Crown Application for Leave to Re Open Crown Case After Close of Accused's Case; Accused Application to Discharge Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be granted leave to re-open its case to call expert evidence about the date and time shown on mobile phone video clips.' 'Whether the circumstances were very special or exceptional and whether the need to call the further evidence ought reasonably to have been foreseen by the Crown.' 'Whether delay caused by allowing the Crown to re-open created incurable prejudice requiring discharge of the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the proposed expert evidence was of central importance to Count 6 and to the complainant's credit, making the circumstances special and exceptional. The need to call the evidence was not reasonably foreseeable in the relevant sense because the Crown was entitled to rely on counsel for the accused's statement in open court that expert evidence about the video would be led in the accused's case. The resulting delay did not create incurable prejudice to the accused and could be addressed by directions to the jury.

Court Disposition

Crown application granted; accused application refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted to the Crown to re-open the Crown case.' "Accused's application to discharge the jury refused."]