R v Perish; R v Lawton; R v Perish [2011] NSWSC 1112

R v Perish; R v Lawton; R v Perish [2011] NSWSC 1112

Leave is not granted to the Crown to cross-examine Witness E upon the previous representations made by Witness B because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Anthony Perish. Leave is granted to cross-examine Witness E upon the identified prior inconsistent statement made during the committal proceedings, as this does not create unfairness and is justified by the factors in s 192 Evidence Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application
Outcome
Leave not granted for cross-examination upon previous representations of Witness B. Leave granted for cross-examination upon identified prior inconsistent statement.
Legal Topics
['unfavourable Witness' 'cross Examination' 'fairness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement']
['criminal Law'] ['unfavourable Witness' 'cross Examination' 'fairness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement']

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 / Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to the Crown to cross-examine Witness E upon previous representations made by Witness B' 'Whether leave should be granted to the Crown to cross-examine Witness E upon prior inconsistent statement made during committal proceedings' 'Considerations of fairness in granting leave for cross-examination']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is not granted to the Crown to cross-examine Witness E upon the previous representations made by Witness B because the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Anthony Perish. Leave is granted to cross-examine Witness E upon the identified prior inconsistent statement made during the committal proceedings, as this does not create unfairness and is justified by the factors in s 192 Evidence Act.

Court Disposition

Leave not granted for cross-examination upon previous representations of Witness B. Leave granted for cross-examination upon identified prior inconsistent statement.

Orders

  • ['Leave is not granted to the Crown to cross-examine Witness E upon the previous representations made by Witness B.' 'Leave is granted to the Crown to cross-examine Witness E upon the identified prior inconsistent statement made during the committal proceedings.']