R v Duffy (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 493

R v Duffy (No. 4) [2015] NSWSC 493

The evidence of Rachael Evans in the seven identified categories was unfavourable within the meaning of s 38 because it conflicted with other significant Crown evidence and, in one respect, expert forensic evidence. No particular prejudice or disadvantage to the accused was shown. As to the fifth area, the Crown's proposed question would put that Ms Evans said 'We're going to kill Colleen now', which would clarify Mr Derbridge's ambiguous evidence in favour of the accused and would not create forensic disadvantage or unfair prejudice. Leave was therefore granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Murder / Crown Application Under S 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Cross Examine Co Offender Rachael Evans
Outcome
Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine the co-offender on seven specified areas.
Legal Topics
['unfavourable Evidence' 'cross Examination of Crown Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'murder Trial' 'co Offender Evidence']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['unfavourable Evidence' 'cross Examination of Crown Witness' 'prior Inconsistent Statement' 'murder Trial' 'co Offender 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 Trial for Murder / Crown Application Under S 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Cross Examine Co Offender Rachael Evans

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence given in-chief by co-offender Rachael Evans in seven identified areas was unfavourable evidence within the meaning of s 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether leave should be granted to the Crown to cross-examine Rachael Evans on those areas.' "Whether cross-examination about Mr Derbridge's evidence of what Ms Evans said before the killing would cause forensic disadvantage or unfair prejudice to the accused."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of Rachael Evans in the seven identified categories was unfavourable within the meaning of s 38 because it conflicted with other significant Crown evidence and, in one respect, expert forensic evidence. No particular prejudice or disadvantage to the accused was shown. As to the fifth area, the Crown's proposed question would put that Ms Evans said 'We're going to kill Colleen now', which would clarify Mr Derbridge's ambiguous evidence in favour of the accused and would not create forensic disadvantage or unfair prejudice. Leave was therefore granted.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the Crown to cross-examine the co-offender on seven specified areas.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted.']