R v Adams (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1563

R v Adams (No 5) [2016] NSWSC 1563

Representation in VD ex G is inadmissible because although it meets basic requirements of business record, it was prepared or obtained in connection with an investigation relating to a criminal proceeding, and s 69(3) excludes it. Representation in VD ex H is admissible as it was created by the police service for general intelligence purposes and not for or in connection with a particular investigation or proceeding; probative value at its highest outweighs prejudicial effect, satisfying s 137.

Parties
Prosecutor: Regina; Accused: Robert John Adams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 November 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Evidence Ruling During Judge Alone Trial
Outcome
Representation in VD ex G inadmissible and tender rejected; representation in VD ex H admissible and tender accepted.
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Hearsay, Business Records Exception, Probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice, Felony Murder, Tendency Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Hearsay Business Records Exception Probative Value Vs Unfair Prejudice Felony Murder Tendency Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

Robert John Adams

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Evidence Ruling During Judge Alone Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether representations in voir dire exhibits G and H are admissible under business records exception to hearsay
  2. 2 Whether business records exception under s 69 of the Evidence Act applies to police documents
  3. 3 Whether s 69(3) excludes the representations

Ratio Decidendi

Representation in VD ex G is inadmissible because although it meets basic requirements of business record, it was prepared or obtained in connection with an investigation relating to a criminal proceeding, and s 69(3) excludes it. Representation in VD ex H is admissible as it was created by the police service for general intelligence purposes and not for or in connection with a particular investigation or proceeding; probative value at its highest outweighs prejudicial effect, satisfying s 137.

Court Disposition

Representation in VD ex G inadmissible and tender rejected; representation in VD ex H admissible and tender accepted.

Orders

  • The representation in voir dire exhibit G is inadmissible and its tender is rejected.
  • The tendered representation in voir dire exhibit H is admissible.