R v Davidson (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 980

R v Davidson (No. 1) [2019] NSWSC 980

The prior incident relied upon by the Crown does not amount to tendency evidence for the purposes of s 97 of the Evidence Act, as a single prior similar act without unusual features is generally insufficient to establish a tendency. The facts do not demonstrate the level of similarity or particularity required to have significant probative value either as to intent or identity. Section 91 precludes reliance on prior judicial findings to prove facts in the current trial. The proposed context evidence either lacks sufficient probative value, is already incorporated into other admissible material, or is not needed to explain the narrative for this judge-alone trial. Accordingly, the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application During Trial Before Verdict
Outcome
Application to admit tendency and context evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'admissibility' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'mental Illness Defence' 'substantial Impairment' 'intoxication']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['tendency Evidence' 'context Evidence' 'admissibility' 'murder' 'manslaughter' 'mental Illness Defence' 'substantial Impairment' '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 / Interlocutory Application During Trial Before Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proposed evidence constitutes admissible tendency evidence under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether the proposed evidence is admissible as context evidence' 'Whether the evidence has significant probative value and its prejudicial effect' "Whether s 91 of the Evidence Act precludes use of Judge Haesler's findings"]

Ratio Decidendi

The prior incident relied upon by the Crown does not amount to tendency evidence for the purposes of s 97 of the Evidence Act, as a single prior similar act without unusual features is generally insufficient to establish a tendency. The facts do not demonstrate the level of similarity or particularity required to have significant probative value either as to intent or identity. Section 91 precludes reliance on prior judicial findings to prove facts in the current trial. The proposed context evidence either lacks sufficient probative value, is already incorporated into other admissible material, or is not needed to explain the narrative for this judge-alone trial. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application to admit tendency and context evidence rejected.

Orders

  • ["The Crown's application to lead the evidence as tendency evidence is rejected." "The Crown's application to lead the evidence as context evidence is rejected."]