R v Tony Ross MCLEOD [2010] NSWDC 146

R v Tony Ross MCLEOD [2010] NSWDC 146

The statements were not admitted because there was a danger of unfair prejudice: the jury might infer a connection between the police attendance at the hotel and the behaviour of Mr McLeod and his companions, and might draw adverse inferences from the police observations. Addressing that prejudice by calling further evidence about the accused's behaviour at the hotel would introduce controversial collateral issues and cause an undue waste of time, where the trial should focus on the accused's behaviour at the relevant time of the alleged assault.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings on a Charge of Assault Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm in Company / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Evidence refused.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Statements' 'intoxication Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'undue Waste of Time' 'evidence Act 1995 S 135' 'evidence Act 1995 S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Statements' 'intoxication Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'undue Waste of Time' 'evidence Act 1995 S 135' 'evidence Act 1995 S 137']

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 Proceedings on a Charge of Assault Occasioning Grievous Bodily Harm in Company / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether two police statements concerning the accused's behaviour and state of intoxication shortly before the alleged assault should be admitted." 'Whether the probative value of the statements was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether admission of the statements should be refused under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 because dealing with the collateral issues would involve an undue waste of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statements were not admitted because there was a danger of unfair prejudice: the jury might infer a connection between the police attendance at the hotel and the behaviour of Mr McLeod and his companions, and might draw adverse inferences from the police observations. Addressing that prejudice by calling further evidence about the accused's behaviour at the hotel would introduce controversial collateral issues and cause an undue waste of time, where the trial should focus on the accused's behaviour at the relevant time of the alleged assault.

Court Disposition

Evidence refused.

Orders

  • ['I refuse to admit the evidence which would be given consistent with VDA and VDB.']