R v Hawkins (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1331

R v Hawkins (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1331

The identified portions of the telephone calls had virtually no probative value but carried a significant danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, particularly as the jury might be influenced to believe that the accused or his lawyers sought to coach a witness. Consequently, under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the relevant evidence was excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Prior to Trial
Outcome
Identified portions of the gaol calls excluded from evidence.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'gaol Calls' 'witness Tainting']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'gaol Calls' 'witness Tainting']

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 / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether portions of phone calls between the accused and Scott Woodward are admissible under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) given risk of unfair prejudice outweighing probative value']

Ratio Decidendi

The identified portions of the telephone calls had virtually no probative value but carried a significant danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, particularly as the jury might be influenced to believe that the accused or his lawyers sought to coach a witness. Consequently, under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), the relevant evidence was excluded.

Court Disposition

Identified portions of the gaol calls excluded from evidence.

Orders

  • ['The identified portions of the gaol calls between the accused and Scott Woodward on 22 and 24 March 2020 may not be led and may not be admitted into evidence.']