R v Maybir (No 1) [2015] NSWSC 1736

R v Maybir (No 1) [2015] NSWSC 1736

Ms Connell's proposed evidence that the accused sometimes lost control and had on two occasions punched a wall or window in frustration was too general to have significant probative value. There was no evidence that, at the time of the alleged fatal assault, matters had got too much for the accused or that he had to let it out, and there was nothing to indicate the circumstances of the prior acts or that they involved interaction with children. The evidence therefore lacked the necessary probative value under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and was inadmissible.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Crown Tendency Evidence During Murder Trial
Outcome
Evidence inadmissible
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 97' 'significant Probative Value' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 97' 'significant Probative Value' 'admissibility of Evidence']

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 Law Evidence Ruling / Ruling on Admissibility of Crown Tendency Evidence During Murder Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence from the accused's mother that the accused sometimes lost control and had punched a wall or window in frustration was admissible as tendency evidence." 'Whether the proposed tendency evidence had significant probative value under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Connell's proposed evidence that the accused sometimes lost control and had on two occasions punched a wall or window in frustration was too general to have significant probative value. There was no evidence that, at the time of the alleged fatal assault, matters had got too much for the accused or that he had to let it out, and there was nothing to indicate the circumstances of the prior acts or that they involved interaction with children. The evidence therefore lacked the necessary probative value under s 97(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and was inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Evidence inadmissible

Orders

  • ['The evidence is inadmissible as it does not have significant probative value.']