R v FEW [2013] NSWSC 1486

R v FEW [2013] NSWSC 1486

Because the identity of the person who inflicted the child's secondary injuries was a fact in issue, and the evidence concerning the mother's conduct in paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) could rationally and significantly affect the assessment of whether someone other than the accused inflicted those injuries, that evidence was admissible as tendency evidence; the evidence in paragraph 10(a) did not qualify for admission under s 97.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder / Interlocutory Application During Trial Without a Jury Concerning Admissibility of Tendency Evidence
Outcome
Evidence particularised in paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) is admissible; evidence particularised in paragraph 10(a) is inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'admissibility' 'relevance' 'murder' "accused's Evidence Concerning Conduct of Deceased Child's Mother"]
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'admissibility' 'relevance' 'murder' "accused's Evidence Concerning Conduct of Deceased Child's Mother"]

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 Prosecution for Murder / Interlocutory Application During Trial Without a Jury Concerning Admissibility of Tendency Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of the deceased child's mother's prior conduct was admissible as tendency evidence under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995." 'Whether the proposed tendency evidence met the threshold test of relevance under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether the evidence had significant probative value in relation to the fact in issue of who inflicted the child's secondary injuries."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because the identity of the person who inflicted the child's secondary injuries was a fact in issue, and the evidence concerning the mother's conduct in paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) could rationally and significantly affect the assessment of whether someone other than the accused inflicted those injuries, that evidence was admissible as tendency evidence; the evidence in paragraph 10(a) did not qualify for admission under s 97.

Court Disposition

Evidence particularised in paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) is admissible; evidence particularised in paragraph 10(a) is inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['Evidence particularised in paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) is admissible.' 'Evidence particularised in paragraph 10(a) is inadmissible.']