R v Jacobs (No 8) [2013] NSWSC 949

R v Jacobs (No 8) [2013] NSWSC 949

Although the evidence of admissions may be unreliable due to the accused's delirium, pursuant to s 165(3) of the Evidence Act 1995, there are good reasons not to give the jury a warning because the court lacks special knowledge or experience about delirium's effects and the jury has detailed expert evidence to allow its own assessment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Application (section 165 Warning)
Outcome
Section 165 application refused.
Legal Topics
['section 165 Warnings' 'unreliable Evidence' 'admissions' 'delirium and Reliability of Evidence']
['evidence Law' 'criminal Law'] ['section 165 Warnings' 'unreliable Evidence' 'admissions' 'delirium and Reliability of Evidence']

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 / Procedural Application (section 165 Warning)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a warning pursuant to s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 should be given regarding alleged admissions of the accused captured on a covert listening device, due to the potential unreliability arising from the accused's delirium."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the evidence of admissions may be unreliable due to the accused's delirium, pursuant to s 165(3) of the Evidence Act 1995, there are good reasons not to give the jury a warning because the court lacks special knowledge or experience about delirium's effects and the jury has detailed expert evidence to allow its own assessment.

Court Disposition

Section 165 application refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for warning pursuant to s 165 of Evidence Act 1995 refused.']