R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 209

R v Bentley; R v Davies; R v Thomas; R v Tilley [2018] NSWSC 209

The probative value of the evidence is significant and not outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly as a non-tendency warning can be given to the jury.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Mitchell James Bentley; Accused: Jack Davies; Accused: William Patrick Thomas; Accused: Jamie Michael Tilley
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidence Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Objection to the evidence overruled; evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Relevance of Evidence, Exclusion of Evidence, Probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice
Evidence Law Criminal Law Relevance of Evidence Exclusion of Evidence Probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Mitchell James Bentley

Accused

Jack Davies

Accused

William Patrick Thomas

Accused

Jamie Michael Tilley

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidence Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the probative value of the witness's evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The probative value of the evidence is significant and not outweighed by unfair prejudice, particularly as a non-tendency warning can be given to the jury.

Court Disposition

Objection to the evidence overruled; evidence admitted

Orders

  • The witness can give evidence in or to the effect of the material in paragraph 30 of his statement