R v Weaver (No 11) [2022] NSWSC 622

Leave was granted because Mr Griggs' evidence that Ms Howlett appeared 'stoned' was not favourable to the Crown and was significantly inconsistent, on an issue in the case, with his prior signed statement describing her as agitated or frightened; the statutory conditions for s 38 were made good and no matter under s 192 justified refusing leave.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 May 2022
Procedural Posture: Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine Witness Pursuant to S 38 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome: Application granted.
Legal Topics: ['unfavourable Witnesses' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'leave to Cross Examine' 'lay Opinion Evidence']

['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['unfavourable Witnesses' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'leave to Cross Examine' 'lay Opinion 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

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Crown Application for Leave to Cross Examine Witness Pursuant to S 38 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

1 ["Whether Mr Griggs' evidence was unfavourable to the Crown for the purposes of s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether Mr Griggs had made a prior inconsistent statement in his police statement of 23 December 2019.' 'Whether the discretion to grant leave should be exercised having regard to s 192 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

['Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine Mr Griggs on the prior inconsistent statement in the terms sought.']