R v Sood [2006] NSWSC 695

R v Sood [2006] NSWSC 695

ND's evidence that the accused provided pills or tablets with a glass of water and an explanation before the procedure was capable of significant probative value on the fact in issue for count 2, namely whether the accused caused LT to take a drug orally, and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. The same evidence was not capable of bearing on the asserted vaginal administration relevant to count 1 and was not relevant to count 3. Evidence of receiving cash without issuing a receipt did not bear on any foundational fact in issue and carried a risk of improper prejudice. Evidence about XX was protected confidence evidence and, in any event, had little or no...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding on Indictment / Voir Dire/pre Trial Admissibility Ruling
Outcome
Tendency evidence from ND admitted only in limited part for count 2; other challenged evidence excluded or not permitted for the purposes sought.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'protected Confidences' 'credibility Evidence' 'unlawful Administration of Drugs With Intent to Procure Miscarriage' 'manslaughter']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'protected Confidences' 'credibility Evidence' 'unlawful Administration of Drugs With Intent to Procure Miscarriage' 'manslaughter']

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 on Indictment / Voir Dire/pre Trial Admissibility Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from ND should be admitted as tendency evidence concerning the accused causing tablets to be taken orally with a glass of water and an explanation before termination procedures.' 'Whether evidence from ND should be admitted as tendency evidence of receiving cash without issuing a receipt.' 'Whether evidence concerning XX should be admitted as tendency evidence despite involving protected confidences.' 'Whether evidence concerning ND and XX should be admitted as proof that the accused lied to the Medical Board about not carrying out terminations of pregnancy beyond 20 weeks.']

Ratio Decidendi

ND's evidence that the accused provided pills or tablets with a glass of water and an explanation before the procedure was capable of significant probative value on the fact in issue for count 2, namely whether the accused caused LT to take a drug orally, and its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. The same evidence was not capable of bearing on the asserted vaginal administration relevant to count 1 and was not relevant to count 3. Evidence of receiving cash without issuing a receipt did not bear on any foundational fact in issue and carried a risk of improper prejudice. Evidence about XX was protected confidence evidence and, in any event, had little or no...

Court Disposition

Tendency evidence from ND admitted only in limited part for count 2; other challenged evidence excluded or not permitted for the purposes sought.

Orders

  • ["Admit, as tendency evidence in relation to count 2, ND's evidence concerning provision of pills or tablets with a glass of water and the stated explanation, together with such other evidence as is necessary to make sense of it." "Do not admit ND's evidence as tendency evidence in relation to count 1 or count 3 on...