R v Afu; R v Caleo (No 13) [2018] NSWSC 222

The evidence was excluded because there was little or nothing to link the conversation to the death of Ms Caleo, and the danger of the jury misusing the evidence outweighed any probative value.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 27 February 2018
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome: evidence excluded
Legal Topics: ['exclusion of Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'prejudicial Evidence' 'probative Value']

['evidence'] ['exclusion of Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'prejudicial Evidence' '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

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether the conversation between Mr Caleo and Ms Bernstein relating to a payment to Janice Yap is admissible as evidence' 'Whether the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by its prejudicial effect']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was excluded because there was little or nothing to link the conversation to the death of Ms Caleo, and the danger of the jury misusing the evidence outweighed any probative value.

Court Disposition

evidence excluded

Orders

['The evidence of the conversation as described by Ms Bernstein is excluded.']