R v WE (No.10) [2020] NSWSC 41

R v WE (No.10) [2020] NSWSC 41

The evidence of the accused's possession of the two publications was not relevant because, viewed as a whole, the publications were essentially conservative religious texts rather than extremist material and did not have the capacity to affect assessment of whether the accused subscribed to an extremist ideology. Possession occurred about 2 years and 10 months after the alleged offence and could not establish a continuum of interest in extremist literature because the publications were not properly categorised as extremist and bore no similarity to the other material relied on by the Crown. In any event, the evidence would have been excluded under s 137 because emphasising selected...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law; Procedural and Other Ruling on Evidence / Pre Trial Voir Dire on the Accused's Notice of Motion Seeking Exclusion of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence excluded
Legal Topics
['terrorism Offence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Evidence' 'religious Publications']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['terrorism Offence' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'expert Evidence' 'religious Publications']

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; Procedural and Other Ruling on Evidence / Pre Trial Voir Dire on the Accused's Notice of Motion Seeking Exclusion of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence that the accused possessed two religious publications seized from his cell at Frank Baxter Juvenile Justice Centre on 30 August 2019 was relevant to whether he subscribed to an extremist ideology at the time of the alleged offence.' 'Whether, if relevant, the evidence should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.' "Whether Dr Rodger Shanahan's expert report about the publications was admissible."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the accused's possession of the two publications was not relevant because, viewed as a whole, the publications were essentially conservative religious texts rather than extremist material and did not have the capacity to affect assessment of whether the accused subscribed to an extremist ideology. Possession occurred about 2 years and 10 months after the alleged offence and could not establish a continuum of interest in extremist literature because the publications were not properly categorised as extremist and bore no similarity to the other material relied on by the Crown. In any event, the evidence would have been excluded under s 137 because emphasising selected...

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded

Orders

  • ["The evidence of the accused's possession of the two publications will be excluded."]