Ku-ring-gai Council v John David Chia (No 6) [2018] NSWLEC 168

Ku-ring-gai Council v John David Chia (No 6) [2018] NSWLEC 168

The contested questions were not leading, as they did not suggest an answer or assume an undisputed fact not already given in evidence. Even if they were leading, leave would have been granted under s 37(1)(a) and s 192 due to the absence of unfairness or procedural disadvantage.

Parties
Prosecutor: Ku-ring-gai Council; Defendant: John David Chia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Objection During Examination in Chief
Outcome
Objection overruled; questions allowed
Legal Topics
Leading Questions, Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 37, Objection During Examination in Chief
Criminal Procedure Leading Questions Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 37 Objection During Examination in Chief

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ku-ring-gai Council

Prosecutor

John David Chia

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Objection During Examination in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether certain questions put to a witness were leading questions pursuant to s 37 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The contested questions were not leading, as they did not suggest an answer or assume an undisputed fact not already given in evidence. Even if they were leading, leave would have been granted under s 37(1)(a) and s 192 due to the absence of unfairness or procedural disadvantage.

Court Disposition

Objection overruled; questions allowed

Orders

  • Objection to questions dismissed; questions permitted in examination-in-chief