R v Cranston (No 10) [2021] NSWSC 1637

R v Cranston (No 10) [2021] NSWSC 1637

The challenged evidence was probative of the ATO’s methodology and calculations regarding company GST liability, was based on standard industry practice, and any prejudice to the accused could be addressed by jury directions. Ms Whiting’s qualifications and experience rendered her evidence admissible under s 79. The evidence was therefore not to be excluded under ss 135 or 137.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application Ruling
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
['exclusion of Evidence' 'probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'judicial Notice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'procedure'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice' 'opinion Evidence' 'expert Evidence' 'judicial Notice']

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 Application Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether sections of Ms Whiting's evidence (ATO officer) should be excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) due to risk of unfair prejudice, misleading, or time wasting" 'Whether her evidence constituted inadmissible opinion evidence not caught by s 79 of the Evidence Act' 'Whether reference to ATO benchmarks relied on undisclosed/unreliable datasets' 'Whether failure to comply with expert witness procedural rules required exclusion']

Ratio Decidendi

The challenged evidence was probative of the ATO’s methodology and calculations regarding company GST liability, was based on standard industry practice, and any prejudice to the accused could be addressed by jury directions. Ms Whiting’s qualifications and experience rendered her evidence admissible under s 79. The evidence was therefore not to be excluded under ss 135 or 137.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the notice of motion filed by Messrs Menon and Onley dated 14 November 2021.']