R v AKB (No. 5) [2018] NSWSC 1110

R v AKB (No. 5) [2018] NSWSC 1110

The evidence in paragraphs 10 to 12 was rejected because the 2007 incident was isolated, remote in time, had low or no probative value, and the alleged threat to kill the deceased was highly prejudicial given the accused was charged with murder; that prejudice outweighed any probative value. The evidence in paragraph 13 was admissible because it was consistent with other evidence about the accused's controlling conduct and tended to demonstrate continuity of approach despite its age. The evidence in paragraph 16 was admissible because evidence of the same matter had already been admitted without objection from another witness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Ruling / Objection to Admissibility of Evidence During Proceedings
Outcome
Evidence in paragraphs 10 to 12 rejected; evidence in paragraphs 13 and 16 may be adduced.
Legal Topics
['relationship Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence From Deceased' 'probative Value' 'prejudice to the Accused' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['relationship Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence From Deceased' 'probative Value' 'prejudice to the Accused' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137']

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 Law Evidence Ruling / Objection to Admissibility of Evidence During Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the evidence in paragraphs 10 to 12 of Malaly Iskandary's statement had sufficient probative value or was too remote in time and unfairly prejudicial to the accused." 'Whether the evidence in paragraph 13 concerning control asserted by the accused over the deceased had sufficient probative value to be admitted.' "Whether the evidence in paragraph 16 concerning the accused's desire for the deceased to have an abortion when pregnant with MB could be adduced."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence in paragraphs 10 to 12 was rejected because the 2007 incident was isolated, remote in time, had low or no probative value, and the alleged threat to kill the deceased was highly prejudicial given the accused was charged with murder; that prejudice outweighed any probative value. The evidence in paragraph 13 was admissible because it was consistent with other evidence about the accused's controlling conduct and tended to demonstrate continuity of approach despite its age. The evidence in paragraph 16 was admissible because evidence of the same matter had already been admitted without objection from another witness.

Court Disposition

Evidence in paragraphs 10 to 12 rejected; evidence in paragraphs 13 and 16 may be adduced.

Orders

  • ['The evidence in paragraphs 10 to 12 of the statement of Malaly Iskandary is rejected.' 'The evidence in paragraphs 13 and 16 of the same statement may be adduced.']