R v Droudis (No. 6) [2016] NSWSC 1263

R v Droudis (No. 6) [2016] NSWSC 1263

In the circumstances of Mr Aspros' evidence, including the unusual issues affecting his evidence and the defence attempt to elicit evidence of evidentiary value about events on Sunday, 21 April 2013, the Court was satisfied under s.42(3) Evidence Act 1995 that the facts concerned would be better ascertained if leading questions were not used in that area at least in the first instance. Fairness to the Accused was protected by permitting leading questions thereafter if Senior Counsel considered them necessary.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings Judge Alone Trial for Murder / Crown Application Under S.42 Evidence Act 1995 During Cross Examination of Crown Witness John Aspros
Outcome
Crown application allowed in part by directing use of non-leading questions in the first instance, with leading questions permitted thereafter if sought.
Legal Topics
['leading Questions' 'cross Examination' 's.42 Evidence Act 1995' 's.38 Evidence Act 1995' 'alibi Evidence' 'witness Reliability']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['leading Questions' 'cross Examination' 's.42 Evidence Act 1995' 's.38 Evidence Act 1995' 'alibi Evidence' 'witness Reliability']

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 Judge Alone Trial for Murder / Crown Application Under S.42 Evidence Act 1995 During Cross Examination of Crown Witness John Aspros

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leading questions should be disallowed in cross-examination of Crown witness John Aspros on events said to have occurred on Sunday, 21 April 2013.' 'Whether a two-stage approach should be adopted, requiring non-leading questions in the first instance but permitting leading questions thereafter if necessary.']

Ratio Decidendi

In the circumstances of Mr Aspros' evidence, including the unusual issues affecting his evidence and the defence attempt to elicit evidence of evidentiary value about events on Sunday, 21 April 2013, the Court was satisfied under s.42(3) Evidence Act 1995 that the facts concerned would be better ascertained if leading questions were not used in that area at least in the first instance. Fairness to the Accused was protected by permitting leading questions thereafter if Senior Counsel considered them necessary.

Court Disposition

Crown application allowed in part by directing use of non-leading questions in the first instance, with leading questions permitted thereafter if sought.

Orders

  • ['Senior Counsel for the Accused should use non-leading questions in the first instance with respect to events said to have happened on Sunday, 21 April 2013.' 'If Senior Counsel for the Accused wishes to move to the use of leading questions thereafter, counsel should indicate when that time has arisen.']