R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 137

R v Leung; R v Webster (No. 1) [2022] NSWDC 137

The tender of 'stocking texts' (texts 1-5) is rejected as inadmissible against both accused due to late disclosure, lack of inclusion in Crown Case Statement/opening, prejudicial nature, absence of clear connection/provenance, and minimal probative value (Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 137 applies equally in judge-alone context). 'Advent 1 texts' (texts 6-11) are admitted as unopposed and relevant to presence at premises. 'Advent 2 texts' (texts 12-25) are rejected against Mr Webster due to latent ambiguity/duplicity in allegations. 'Clean laundry texts' (texts 26-30) and 'tobacco texts' (texts 31-34) are rejected for late disclosure, minimal probative value, and risk of prejudicial/misleading...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Admissibility During Trial (voir Dire)
Outcome
Tender of certain evidence rejected/admitted as specified.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'prosecutorial Duty of Disclosure' 'pre Trial Procedure' 'rule Against Duplicity' 'probative/prejudicial Balancing' 'exclusion Under Evidence Act']
['criminal Law' 'evidence Law'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'prosecutorial Duty of Disclosure' 'pre Trial Procedure' 'rule Against Duplicity' 'probative/prejudicial Balancing' 'exclusion Under Evidence Act']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Evidentiary Admissibility During Trial (voir Dire)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether various text messages and Cellebrite extraction report (Exhibits VD4, VD5) are admissible against the accused under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether prosecutorial duty of disclosure was complied with under common law and statutory provisions' 'Whether late disclosure/preparation of evidence justifies exclusion' 'Whether certain evidence is prejudicial or confusing' 'Whether exclusion is justified under s 135 or s 137 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)' 'Whether tender of evidence gives rise to duplicity/ambiguity in charges']

Ratio Decidendi

The tender of 'stocking texts' (texts 1-5) is rejected as inadmissible against both accused due to late disclosure, lack of inclusion in Crown Case Statement/opening, prejudicial nature, absence of clear connection/provenance, and minimal probative value (Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 137 applies equally in judge-alone context). 'Advent 1 texts' (texts 6-11) are admitted as unopposed and relevant to presence at premises. 'Advent 2 texts' (texts 12-25) are rejected against Mr Webster due to latent ambiguity/duplicity in allegations. 'Clean laundry texts' (texts 26-30) and 'tobacco texts' (texts 31-34) are rejected for late disclosure, minimal probative value, and risk of prejudicial/misleading...

Court Disposition

Tender of certain evidence rejected/admitted as specified.

Orders

  • ["The tender of the 'stocking texts' in Exhibit VD4 is rejected as against both accused." "The tender of the 'advent 1 texts' in Exhibit VD4 against Mr Webster is admitted." "The tender of the 'advent 2 texts' in Exhibit VD4 against Mr Webster is rejected." "The tender of the 'clean laundry texts' in Exhibit VD4 is...