R v Jones & Ors (No5) [2007] NSWSC 1155

R v Jones & Ors (No5) [2007] NSWSC 1155

The statement of Mary Rose Smith was not admissible because it lacked clear probative value, and its prejudicial effect on the accused outweighed any possible probative benefit under s 137. Leave under s 108(3) was refused due to the risk that the jury would substitute the written statement for oral evidence, and further complications regarding the accuracy and adoption of the statement.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Adam Jones; Accused: Samuel Jones; Accused: Elizabeth Jean Jones; Accused: Lydia Jones; Accused: Adam Samuel Jones
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Objection During Trial
Outcome
Objection upheld.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Prior Consistent Statements, Credibility of Witnesses, Hearsay, Probative Value, Prejudicial Value
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Prior Consistent Statements Credibility of Witnesses Hearsay Probative Value Prejudicial 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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Adam Jones

Accused

Samuel Jones

Accused

Elizabeth Jean Jones

Accused

Lydia Jones

Accused

Adam Samuel Jones

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Objection During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement of Mary Rose Smith is admissible as evidence under s 55 or s 108(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the probative value of the statement outweighs its prejudicial effect under s 137 and s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The statement of Mary Rose Smith was not admissible because it lacked clear probative value, and its prejudicial effect on the accused outweighed any possible probative benefit under s 137. Leave under s 108(3) was refused due to the risk that the jury would substitute the written statement for oral evidence, and further complications regarding the accuracy and adoption of the statement.

Court Disposition

Objection upheld.

Orders

  • Leave to tender the statement of Mary Rose Smith is refused.