R v Toki (No. 3) [2000] NSWSC 999

R v Toki (No. 3) [2000] NSWSC 999

The evidence was admissible as relationship evidence because it was highly relevant to the jury's assessment of what occurred at Crown Street and Phelps Street, the conduct of the accused and deceased, and the possibility that the deceased's injuries were accidental or inflicted by someone else. It was not admissible as tendency evidence because the circumstances of prior injuries were insufficiently particularised, lacked the significant probative value required by s 97, would not satisfy s 101, and would risk confusing the jury. The unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the relationship evidence under s 137, although particular prejudicial details had to be excluded...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 October 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Evidence admitted in part as relationship evidence, subject to limitations; not admitted as tendency evidence.
Legal Topics
['relationship Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'murder' 'domestic Violence Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['relationship Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'murder' 'domestic Violence Evidence']

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 Prosecution for Murder / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence concerning the relationship between the accused and the deceased over more than two years before her death was admissible as evidence of relationship.' 'Whether the evidence was admissible as tendency evidence to prove that the accused had a tendency to act violently towards the deceased when angry.' 'Whether otherwise admissible evidence should be rejected or limited because its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice.' 'Whether statements made by the deceased about fear of the accused and about assaults by the accused were admissible under the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was admissible as relationship evidence because it was highly relevant to the jury's assessment of what occurred at Crown Street and Phelps Street, the conduct of the accused and deceased, and the possibility that the deceased's injuries were accidental or inflicted by someone else. It was not admissible as tendency evidence because the circumstances of prior injuries were insufficiently particularised, lacked the significant probative value required by s 97, would not satisfy s 101, and would risk confusing the jury. The unfair prejudice did not outweigh the probative value of the relationship evidence under s 137, although particular prejudicial details had to be excluded...

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted in part as relationship evidence, subject to limitations; not admitted as tendency evidence.

Orders

  • ['Evidence concerning the relationship between the accused and the deceased was admitted subject to limitations.' 'The evidence was not admitted as tendency evidence.' 'Overly prejudicial evidence, including complaints of attempted strangling, being hit with an iron bar, broken ribs on an earlier occasion and...