R v MEYN, John Michael (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1449

R v MEYN, John Michael (No 2) [2012] NSWSC 1449

The proposed tendency evidence was not admitted because (i) the incidents relied upon were too remote in time, (ii) the number and nature of the incidents and their circumstances lacked sufficient similarity or commonality with the facts in issue, particularly as to the identity of the victim and accused's motive, and (iii) a single prior incident of violence was not significantly probative in establishing the accused's conduct in the charged offence. Accordingly, the statutory test of significant probative value was not met.

Parties
Prosecutor: Crown; Accused: John Michael Meyn
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence (voir Dire) Prior to Jury Trial
Outcome
Tender of tendency evidence rejected
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Domestic Homicide, Murder, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Tendency Evidence Domestic Homicide Murder 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Prosecutor

John Michael Meyn

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence (voir Dire) Prior to Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of prior violent acts constitutes admissible tendency evidence under Evidence Act 1995 in a murder trial
  2. 2 Whether the proposed tendency evidence has significant probative value in relation to the facts in issue

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed tendency evidence was not admitted because (i) the incidents relied upon were too remote in time, (ii) the number and nature of the incidents and their circumstances lacked sufficient similarity or commonality with the facts in issue, particularly as to the identity of the victim and accused's motive, and (iii) a single prior incident of violence was not significantly probative in establishing the accused's conduct in the charged offence. Accordingly, the statutory test of significant probative value was not met.

Court Disposition

Tender of tendency evidence rejected

Orders

  • Tender of tendency evidence rejected