R v Michael BROWN (No 4)* [2010] NSWDC 347

R v Michael BROWN (No 4)* [2010] NSWDC 347

The tendered evidence was rejected because its connection to the accused was tenuous, it was highly prejudicial, and its probative value did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Jury Trial
Outcome
evidence tender rejected
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'credibility of Complainant' 'prejudicial Versus Probative Value']
['criminal Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'credibility of Complainant' 'prejudicial Versus Probative Value']

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 / Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence of a telephone message left for the complainant should be admitted at trial' 'Whether the probative value of the evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect' 'If the accused’s connection to the message is sufficiently established']

Ratio Decidendi

The tendered evidence was rejected because its connection to the accused was tenuous, it was highly prejudicial, and its probative value did not outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.

Court Disposition

evidence tender rejected

Orders

  • ['I reject the tender of VD D, VD E and VD F.']