R v Tangi (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 542

R v Tangi (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 542

Evidence in paragraphs 13 and 14 was admitted because the alleged prior incident occurred not long before the assault, concerned the deceased, was relevant to facts in issue, and did not give rise to unfair prejudice outweighing its substantial probative value; any prejudice could be addressed by directions. Evidence in paragraph 15 was rejected because, although relevant, there was no evidence that the accused's general anger persisted from mid-morning until the assault, creating a danger that the jury would misuse it as tendency evidence, and that unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Evidentiary Objection During Trial
Outcome
Evidence of the non-violent altercation two days prior to the alleged assault between the accused and deceased admitted; evidence of the accused's statement as to general feelings of anger rejected.
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'hearsay' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'tendency or State of Mind Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['relevance' 'hearsay' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'tendency or State of Mind Evidence' 'admissibility of 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 Proceedings / Evidentiary Objection During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of a non-violent altercation between the accused and the deceased one or two days before the alleged assault was relevant and admissible.' "Whether evidence of the accused's statement about his general anger and what he was likely to do if pushed the wrong way should be excluded because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice."]

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence in paragraphs 13 and 14 was admitted because the alleged prior incident occurred not long before the assault, concerned the deceased, was relevant to facts in issue, and did not give rise to unfair prejudice outweighing its substantial probative value; any prejudice could be addressed by directions. Evidence in paragraph 15 was rejected because, although relevant, there was no evidence that the accused's general anger persisted from mid-morning until the assault, creating a danger that the jury would misuse it as tendency evidence, and that unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Evidence of the non-violent altercation two days prior to the alleged assault between the accused and deceased admitted; evidence of the accused's statement as to general feelings of anger rejected.

Orders

  • ["Evidence of the substance of paragraphs 13 and 14 of Witness D's statement admitted." "Evidence of the contents of paragraph 15 of Witness D's statement rejected."]