R v Cranston (No 9) [2021] NSWSC 1413

R v Cranston (No 9) [2021] NSWSC 1413

The Court held that, except for a small number of utterances made on 1 February 2017 that might arguably have been influenced by a threat of violence (excluded under s 84), the vast majority of challenged evidence post-1 February 2017 was not influenced by violence or oppression. The statements were predicament-related, arising from the existing ATO investigation. Further, extensive jury directions could manage any risk under ss 135 and 137, and no further evidence (other than already excluded items) should be excluded under those sections or under s 90. Rulings on further s 135(c) objections were stood over for a future hearing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Application for exclusion of most of the challenged evidence refused except for certain items excluded under s 84; further determination on s 135(c) objections stood over.
Legal Topics
['evidence – Admissibility of Admissions' 'exclusion of Evidence – S 84, S 90, S 135, S 137 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'criminal Procedure – Conspiracy' 'federal Offences – Overt Acts']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['evidence – Admissibility of Admissions' 'exclusion of Evidence – S 84, S 90, S 135, S 137 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)' 'criminal Procedure – Conspiracy' 'federal Offences – Overt Acts']

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 / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether certain recorded evidence should be excluded under s 84, s 90, s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether alleged admissions were influenced by violence or oppressive conduct' 'Whether the probative value of evidence is outweighed by unfair prejudice']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that, except for a small number of utterances made on 1 February 2017 that might arguably have been influenced by a threat of violence (excluded under s 84), the vast majority of challenged evidence post-1 February 2017 was not influenced by violence or oppression. The statements were predicament-related, arising from the existing ATO investigation. Further, extensive jury directions could manage any risk under ss 135 and 137, and no further evidence (other than already excluded items) should be excluded under those sections or under s 90. Rulings on further s 135(c) objections were stood over for a future hearing.

Court Disposition

Application for exclusion of most of the challenged evidence refused except for certain items excluded under s 84; further determination on s 135(c) objections stood over.

Orders

  • ['Items 9-16 of the challenged evidence excluded as admissions under s 84 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'All other challenged evidence not excluded under ss 84, 90, 135, or 137.' 'Further determination of s 135(c) objections to be heard no later than February 2022.' 'See detailed rulings in Annexure A.']