R v Dwayne Anthony CARR (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 724

R v Dwayne Anthony CARR (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 724

The ERISP, or statements made in the interview, are inadmissible because the accused's lie is not unique, was told by many innocent witnesses, and admitting it would cause unfair prejudice and mislead the jury; the probative value does not outweigh the danger, and evidence is excluded under s 137, and in the alternative, s 135(b) of the Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
ERISP excluded; evidence inadmissible; procedural ruling.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'lies as Evidence' 'procedural Fairness']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'lies as Evidence' 'procedural Fairness']

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 Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the ERISP (interview) with the accused is admissible' "Whether the accused's lie can be used as consciousness of guilt" 'Whether the evidence is unfairly prejudicial or misleading']

Ratio Decidendi

The ERISP, or statements made in the interview, are inadmissible because the accused's lie is not unique, was told by many innocent witnesses, and admitting it would cause unfair prejudice and mislead the jury; the probative value does not outweigh the danger, and evidence is excluded under s 137, and in the alternative, s 135(b) of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

ERISP excluded; evidence inadmissible; procedural ruling.

Orders

  • ['The ERISP, or evidence of statements made in the interview, is inadmissible.']