R v RJ [2011] NSWDC 158

The Crown was not permitted to lead tendency evidence due to failure to comply with notice requirements, no adequate explanation for late notice, and failing to meet the probative value threshold relative to prejudice.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 13 October 2011
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Interlocutory Application (voir Dire Before Trial)
Outcome: Application by Crown to adduce tendency evidence refused.
Legal Topics: ['tendency Evidence' 'notice Requirements' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prejudice Versus Probative Value']

['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'notice Requirements' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'prejudice Versus Probative Value']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application (voir Dire Before Trial)

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to adduce tendency evidence despite late service of the tendency notice' 'Whether failure to comply with statutory notice requirements should lead to refusal to dispense with service of notice' 'Whether evidence sought has significant probative value and outweighs prejudice']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application by Crown to adduce tendency evidence refused.

Orders

['Crown not permitted to adduce tendency evidence.' 'Only limited context evidence allowed to explain lack of contemporaneous complaint.']