Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 670

Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 670

The proposed cross-examination satisfied s 103 because, assuming the job application contained an untrue representation, a potential employer would consider truthful information about past work experience important, this was especially so for a qualified and registered architect, the accused had put himself forward as a person of high religious standards and moral virtue, and credibility was very much in issue. The alleged lie therefore had substantial probative value, although only by a relatively small margin.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Evidentiary Ruling During Cross Examination of the Accused Concerning Asserted Deliberately Misleading Material in Exhibit "vv"
Outcome
Question allowed; the Crown was permitted to ask the accused about the asserted deliberately misleading material in exhibit "VV".
Legal Topics
['credibility Rule' 'cross Examination' 'lies' 'substantial Probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['credibility Rule' 'cross Examination' 'lies' 'substantial Probative Value']

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 / Evidentiary Ruling During Cross Examination of the Accused Concerning Asserted Deliberately Misleading Material in Exhibit "vv"

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown could cross-examine the accused about asserted deliberately misleading material in a job application contained in exhibit "VV".' 'Whether the proposed cross-examination was excluded by the credibility rule in s 102 of the Evidence Act or admissible under the exception in s 103 because it had substantial probative value.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-examination satisfied s 103 because, assuming the job application contained an untrue representation, a potential employer would consider truthful information about past work experience important, this was especially so for a qualified and registered architect, the accused had put himself forward as a person of high religious standards and moral virtue, and credibility was very much in issue. The alleged lie therefore had substantial probative value, although only by a relatively small margin.

Court Disposition

Question allowed; the Crown was permitted to ask the accused about the asserted deliberately misleading material in exhibit "VV".

Orders

  • ['The Crown is allowed to ask the question.']