R v Michael BROWN (No 3)* [2010] NSWDC 346

R v Michael BROWN (No 3)* [2010] NSWDC 346

The interim family law orders had only very slight probative value because the Crown's proposed inference depended on unknown evidence and findings from another court, the orders were interim with no indication of the final outcome, and the orders restraining Mr Brown from consuming alcohol or non-prescription drugs and requiring a parenting course were obviously prejudicial. The probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mr Brown, so the evidence was refused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial for Alleged Sexual Intercourse Without Consent / Voir Dire Objection to Tender of Interim Family Law Orders
Outcome
Tender rejected
Legal Topics
['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'tender of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'interim Family Law Orders' 'complainant Credibility']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'family Law'] ['sexual Intercourse Without Consent' 'tender of Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'interim Family Law Orders' 'complainant Credibility']

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 Jury Trial for Alleged Sexual Intercourse Without Consent / Voir Dire Objection to Tender of Interim Family Law Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether interim family law orders concerning the complainant, the accused and their child should be admitted after the complainant's credibility was challenged in cross-examination." 'Whether the probative value of the interim family law orders was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mr Brown under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interim family law orders had only very slight probative value because the Crown's proposed inference depended on unknown evidence and findings from another court, the orders were interim with no indication of the final outcome, and the orders restraining Mr Brown from consuming alcohol or non-prescription drugs and requiring a parenting course were obviously prejudicial. The probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mr Brown, so the evidence was refused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

  • ['I reject the tender' 'I refuse to admit the evidence under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995']