R v Parker [2016] NSWSC 363

R v Parker [2016] NSWSC 363

The proposed tendency use of the relationship evidence was rejected because use of a knife was not a substantive issue, the prior relationship circumstances were disputed and would require major mini-trials before they could disclose aggression, intent or state of mind, and their limited probative value did not satisfy the requirements for tendency evidence against an accused. The single prior incident in a previous relationship was too remote, had limited probative value and significant prejudicial effect, so it also did not meet the test for tendency evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Crown Tendency Notice
Outcome
Tendency purpose of evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'relationship Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'use of Knives' 'intoxication']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'relationship Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'use of Knives' 'intoxication']

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 Murder Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Crown Tendency Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether relationship evidence involving alleged violence, aggression and use of knives could be used to prove tendencies against the accused in criminal proceedings.' 'Whether a single prior incident in a previous relationship could be used as tendency evidence against the accused.' 'Whether the probative value of the proposed tendency evidence satisfied ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed tendency use of the relationship evidence was rejected because use of a knife was not a substantive issue, the prior relationship circumstances were disputed and would require major mini-trials before they could disclose aggression, intent or state of mind, and their limited probative value did not satisfy the requirements for tendency evidence against an accused. The single prior incident in a previous relationship was too remote, had limited probative value and significant prejudicial effect, so it also did not meet the test for tendency evidence.

Court Disposition

Tendency purpose of evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ['The evidence sought to be adduced for a tendency purpose and subject to the Notice and Amended Notice by the Crown not be admitted or used to prove any one of the three tendencies described.']