R v HG; R v WE (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1211

R v HG; R v WE (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 1211

The question was disallowed because it could not rationally affect the jury's assessment of any fact in issue, including intention, and relying on it would involve circuitous reasoning and unwarranted speculation.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural and Other Ruling on Objection to Crown Question During Evidence in Chief
Outcome
Question disallowed.
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'credit Evidence' 'interview Evidence' 'intention']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['relevance' 'credit Evidence' 'interview Evidence' 'intention']

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 Proceeding / Procedural and Other Ruling on Objection to Crown Question During Evidence in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown could ask a witness whether accused WE needed prompting when providing information in an interview about his travel to Northern Sinai.' "Whether the question was relevant to proof of an element of the offence, particularly intention, or to the accused's credit."]

Ratio Decidendi

The question was disallowed because it could not rationally affect the jury's assessment of any fact in issue, including intention, and relying on it would involve circuitous reasoning and unwarranted speculation.

Court Disposition

Question disallowed.

Orders

  • ['The question is disallowed.']