REGINA v. PARK [1999] NSWSC 953

REGINA v. PARK [1999] NSWSC 953

Limited leave is granted to cross-examine the witness in re-examination about her prior inconsistent statement regarding her belief in the accused's involvement in the disappearance, but evidence regarding speculative and particularly prejudicial possibilities is excluded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 September 1999
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application for Leave to Cross Examine Under Evidence Act S.38
Outcome
Application granted with limitation
Legal Topics
['cross Examination in Re Examination' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'character Evidence' 'prior Inconsistent Statements']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination in Re Examination' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'character Evidence' 'prior Inconsistent Statements']

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 Trial / Application for Leave to Cross Examine Under Evidence Act S.38

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether s.78 of the Evidence Act 1995 prohibits eliciting lay opinion evidence in cross-examination' 'Whether leave should be granted to cross-examine the witness regarding a prior inconsistent statement under s.38 of the Evidence Act 1995' 'Whether the prejudicial nature of speculative evidence precludes its admission']

Ratio Decidendi

Limited leave is granted to cross-examine the witness in re-examination about her prior inconsistent statement regarding her belief in the accused's involvement in the disappearance, but evidence regarding speculative and particularly prejudicial possibilities is excluded.

Court Disposition

Application granted with limitation

Orders

  • ["Leave granted to question Mina Park under s.38 about her prior inconsistent statement regarding the accused's involvement in the disappearance, only to the extent ruled by the court." 'Evidence about speculative possibilities is excluded as too prejudicial.']