R v Sharpe (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 52

R v Sharpe (No 5) [2021] NSWSC 52

The third incident of the deceased smashing a hotel window with his fist demonstrates violent and unpredictable behaviour close in time to his death and supports the accused's case of self-defence. It meets the test of significant probative value under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and is admitted as tendency evidence; the first and second incidents are too remote and lack sufficient probative value to be admitted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory (evidentiary Ruling)
Outcome
Evidence admitted in part
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'self Defence' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['tendency Evidence' 'self Defence' '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 / Interlocutory (evidentiary Ruling)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of previous instances of violence by the deceased has significant probative value as tendency evidence and is admissible under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)']

Ratio Decidendi

The third incident of the deceased smashing a hotel window with his fist demonstrates violent and unpredictable behaviour close in time to his death and supports the accused's case of self-defence. It meets the test of significant probative value under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and is admitted as tendency evidence; the first and second incidents are too remote and lack sufficient probative value to be admitted.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted in part

Orders

  • ['Evidence of the third incident involving the deceased smashing a window on 9 March 2019 is admitted as tendency evidence.' 'Evidence of the first and second incidents is not admitted as tendency evidence.']