R (Cth) v Pirrello, Pirrello & D’Agostino [2019] NSWSC 1858
Tendency evidence to prove states of mind admissible; tendency evidence regarding specific actions inadmissible due to insufficient probative value. Shepherd Direction not required as evidence independent of agency established a clear case against the accused on count 3.
- Parties
- Prosecution: Regina (Crown); First Accused: Joseph D'Agostino; Second Accused: Michael Pirrello; Third Accused: Francesco Pirrello
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Trial Proceedings; Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- Tendency evidence admitted in part; Shepherd direction declined
- Legal Topics
- Conspiracy to Import Drugs, Tendency Evidence, Shepherd Direction, Admissibility of Evidence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina (Crown)
Prosecution
Joseph D'Agostino
First Accused
Michael Pirrello
Second Accused
Francesco Pirrello
Third Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Proceedings; Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 admissibility of tendency evidence
- 2 requirement for Shepherd direction in relation to agency evidence
Ratio Decidendi
Tendency evidence to prove states of mind admissible; tendency evidence regarding specific actions inadmissible due to insufficient probative value. Shepherd Direction not required as evidence independent of agency established a clear case against the accused on count 3.
Court Disposition
Tendency evidence admitted in part; Shepherd direction declined
Orders
- Crown permitted to rely on evidence of tendency to have a state of mind, but not to do particular acts
- Application by accused for Shepherd Direction refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment