R v Keli LANE [No 11] [2010] NSWSC 1538

R v Keli LANE [No 11] [2010] NSWSC 1538

The evidence was already before the jury and was capable of supporting tendency reasoning relevant to whether the accused fabricated paternity accounts and whether Andrew Morris/Norris was a fictional person. It had significant probative value for both Crown and defence purposes, and any risk of unfair prejudice or impermissible reasoning could be adequately addressed by carefully crafted jury directions. Accordingly, the evidence passed the statutory hurdles in ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 and could be relied on as tendency evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on the Crown's Application to Use Evidence as Tendency Evidence at Trial
Outcome
Crown application allowed subject to carefully crafted jury directions; the relevant categories of evidence may be relied upon as tendency evidence.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'admissibility' 'probative Value Versus Prejudicial Effect' 'jury Directions' 'risk of Impermissible Reasoning']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['tendency Evidence' 'admissibility' 'probative Value Versus Prejudicial Effect' 'jury Directions' 'risk of Impermissible Reasoning']

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 Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on the Crown's Application to Use Evidence as Tendency Evidence at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence concerning the accused's conduct in relation to other births and statements about paternity could be classified and used as tendency evidence." 'Whether the proposed tendency evidence had significant probative value under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether, in a criminal proceeding, the probative value of the tendency evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect under s 101 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether jury directions could prevent unfair prejudice and impermissible reasoning.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was already before the jury and was capable of supporting tendency reasoning relevant to whether the accused fabricated paternity accounts and whether Andrew Morris/Norris was a fictional person. It had significant probative value for both Crown and defence purposes, and any risk of unfair prejudice or impermissible reasoning could be adequately addressed by carefully crafted jury directions. Accordingly, the evidence passed the statutory hurdles in ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 and could be relied on as tendency evidence.

Court Disposition

Crown application allowed subject to carefully crafted jury directions; the relevant categories of evidence may be relied upon as tendency evidence.

Orders

  • ['Each of the relevant categories of evidence outlined in the tendency notices may be relied upon by both Crown and defence as tendency evidence in the trial.']