R v Christos PODARAS [2009] NSWDC 276

R v Christos PODARAS [2009] NSWDC 276

The proposed cross-examination concerned conduct of another person pointing to a tendency to harm the Crown witness. Although no notice had been given under s 97, the Crown did not argue prejudice or surprise, the matter had been disclosed in Crown material, and the evidence had significant probative value for the evidence of the other Crown witness. The court therefore directed under s 100 that the tendency rule was not to apply.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial / Ruling on Crown Objection to Line of Cross Examination
Outcome
The tendency rule does not apply.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination' 'credibility Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'notice Requirement' 'significant Probative Value']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination' 'credibility Evidence' 'tendency Evidence' 'notice Requirement' 'significant 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 Jury Trial / Ruling on Crown Objection to Line of Cross Examination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether questions about another person lying about and having a motive to harm a Crown witness amounted to credibility evidence under s 101A of the Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether the proposed line of cross-examination was tendency evidence.' "Whether the tendency rule should not apply despite the accused's failure to give notice under s 97(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-examination concerned conduct of another person pointing to a tendency to harm the Crown witness. Although no notice had been given under s 97, the Crown did not argue prejudice or surprise, the matter had been disclosed in Crown material, and the evidence had significant probative value for the evidence of the other Crown witness. The court therefore directed under s 100 that the tendency rule was not to apply.

Court Disposition

The tendency rule does not apply.

Orders

  • ["Direction under s 100 of the Evidence Act 1995 that the tendency rule is not to apply despite the accused's failure to give notice under s 97."]