R. v. Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7) [2012] NSWSC 1160

R. v. Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7) [2012] NSWSC 1160

MFI 21 was admissible because there was an inconsistency between the statement in MFI 21 that after the accused punched the deceased for the second time the deceased just fell backwards and Mr. Moody's evidence in cross-examination disavowing a connection between those events; the requirements of s.106(1) were satisfied and, because MFI 21 was a prior inconsistent statement, leave was not required under s.106(2)(c). The rule in Gately and R v NZ did not apply because MFI 21 was not a recording of testimony in chief under special legislation but was analogous to a recorded police interview or record of an event, as discussed in R v Davies. Accordingly, MFI 21 was admitted as Exhibit P.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Application Concerning Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
MFI 21 admitted as Exhibit P.
Legal Topics
['prior Inconsistent Statements' 'credibility Rule' 'hearsay Rule' 'unfavourable Witnesses' 'electronically Recorded Police Interview' 'jury Access to Audiovisual Exhibits']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['prior Inconsistent Statements' 'credibility Rule' 'hearsay Rule' 'unfavourable Witnesses' 'electronically Recorded Police Interview' 'jury Access to Audiovisual Exhibits']

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 / Interlocutory Application Concerning Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether MFI 21, a DVD containing excerpts from Mr. Moody's electronically recorded police interview, was admissible as a prior inconsistent statement after amendments made by the Evidence Amendment Act 2007 (NSW)." 'Whether the rule in R v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628 and Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208 prevented MFI 21 from being admitted as an exhibit or made available to the jury during deliberations.']

Ratio Decidendi

MFI 21 was admissible because there was an inconsistency between the statement in MFI 21 that after the accused punched the deceased for the second time the deceased just fell backwards and Mr. Moody's evidence in cross-examination disavowing a connection between those events; the requirements of s.106(1) were satisfied and, because MFI 21 was a prior inconsistent statement, leave was not required under s.106(2)(c). The rule in Gately and R v NZ did not apply because MFI 21 was not a recording of testimony in chief under special legislation but was analogous to a recorded police interview or record of an event, as discussed in R v Davies. Accordingly, MFI 21 was admitted as Exhibit P.

Court Disposition

MFI 21 admitted as Exhibit P.

Orders

  • ['MFI 21 be admitted as Exhibit "P".']