REGINA v. WILLOUGHBY [2000] NSWSC 751

REGINA v. WILLOUGHBY [2000] NSWSC 751

The proposed evidence had high probative value because it was capable of showing a significant association between the accused and the mobile phone and thereby materially assisting identification of the assailant. Although the Crown had not given reasonable notice of its use as tendency evidence, the prejudice to the defence could be cured as far as possible by discharge of the jury, adjournment of the trial, and the Crown's undertaking directed to costs thrown away; accordingly the jury was discharged and the trial adjourned.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2000
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application During Trial Concerning Admissibility of Evidence and Discharge of Jury
Outcome
Jury discharged; trial adjourned; matter placed back in the callover list.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'notice of Tendency Evidence' 'application to Dispense With Notice' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect' 'discharge of Jury' 'adjournment']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'notice of Tendency Evidence' 'application to Dispense With Notice' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect' 'discharge of Jury' 'adjournment']

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 Trial / Application During Trial Concerning Admissibility of Evidence and Discharge of Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence that the accused used a mobile phone and voice answering system in trading marijuana could be admitted to identify him as the user of the mobile phone near the time of the killing.' 'Whether the evidence should be treated as tendency evidence under s.97 of the Evidence Act 1995 and admitted under ss.97 and 101.' 'Whether the absence of reasonable notice of tendency evidence could be addressed by dispensing with notice under s.100 of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether any prejudice to the defence from late notice could be cured by adjournment, discharge of the jury and the Crown's undertaking concerning costs thrown away."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed evidence had high probative value because it was capable of showing a significant association between the accused and the mobile phone and thereby materially assisting identification of the assailant. Although the Crown had not given reasonable notice of its use as tendency evidence, the prejudice to the defence could be cured as far as possible by discharge of the jury, adjournment of the trial, and the Crown's undertaking directed to costs thrown away; accordingly the jury was discharged and the trial adjourned.

Court Disposition

Jury discharged; trial adjourned; matter placed back in the callover list.

Orders

  • ['The jury be discharged.' 'The trial be adjourned.' 'The matter be placed back in the callover list on the next callover occasion.' 'The exhibits may be returned.']