R (Cth) v Mohr (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 231

R (Cth) v Mohr (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 231

Leave is granted to the Crown under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to cross-examine Person Y, as he is an unfavourable witness who did not make a genuine attempt to give evidence on matters he is reasonably expected to know, and has made prior inconsistent statements. This is supported by his presentation, the content of his police statement, and a recorded conversation, showing inconsistency and lack of genuine attempt.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina (Crown); Accused: Darren Mohr
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application During Trial
Outcome
Section 38 application granted to the Crown
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug, Unfavourable Witness, Section 38 Evidence Act Application, Prior Inconsistent Statement
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Import a Commercial Quantity of a Border Controlled Drug Unfavourable Witness Section 38 Evidence Act Application 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina (Crown)

Prosecution

Darren Mohr

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) for the Crown to cross-examine its own witness as unfavourable
  2. 2 Whether the witness has failed to make a genuine attempt to give evidence about matters he can reasonably be supposed to have knowledge of
  3. 3 Whether the witness has made a prior inconsistent statement

Ratio Decidendi

Leave is granted to the Crown under s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to cross-examine Person Y, as he is an unfavourable witness who did not make a genuine attempt to give evidence on matters he is reasonably expected to know, and has made prior inconsistent statements. This is supported by his presentation, the content of his police statement, and a recorded conversation, showing inconsistency and lack of genuine attempt.

Court Disposition

Section 38 application granted to the Crown

Orders

  • Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine Person Y on the enumerated matters from his police statement and transcript.