R v Maybir (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1737

R v Maybir (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1737

Evidence from Ms Naomi Brealey (paragraphs 17 and 18) and Ms Ecelini Brealey about the accused’s specific acts of grabbing children’s faces and disciplining with objects is admissible as tendency evidence, as its probative value in explaining injuries to the deceased and supporting the Crown’s case substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect, which can be managed with proper jury directions. Context evidence relating to the accused’s prior relationship five years before the charged events has minimal probative value, is too remote, risks unfair prejudice, and is inadmissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial
Outcome
Tendency evidence partly admitted; context evidence excluded.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'admissibility' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'admissibility' 'unfair Prejudice']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether tendency evidence of accused’s conduct towards other children is admissible under ss 97(1), 101, Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether context evidence relating to prior relationship is admissible or unfairly prejudicial']

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence from Ms Naomi Brealey (paragraphs 17 and 18) and Ms Ecelini Brealey about the accused’s specific acts of grabbing children’s faces and disciplining with objects is admissible as tendency evidence, as its probative value in explaining injuries to the deceased and supporting the Crown’s case substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect, which can be managed with proper jury directions. Context evidence relating to the accused’s prior relationship five years before the charged events has minimal probative value, is too remote, risks unfair prejudice, and is inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Tendency evidence partly admitted; context evidence excluded.

Orders

  • ['Evidence in paragraphs 17 and 18 of Ms Naomi Brealey’s statement of 29 May 2013 is admissible as tendency evidence.' 'Evidence in paragraph 20 of Ms Naomi Brealey’s statement is inadmissible.' 'Evidence in paragraph 9 of Ms Ecelini Brealey’s statement of 29 May 2013 is admissible as tendency evidence.' 'Proposed...