R v Camelo-Gomez (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 309

R v Camelo-Gomez (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 309

Questions and answers 35 through 42 on pages 4 and 5 were admissible because they concerned the same matter as the evidence the accused sought to adduce, namely Mr Camelo's residence at the Jones household, and the prejudice asserted by the accused did not warrant exclusion under ss 135 or 137. Questions and answers 42 through 47 on pages 31 and 32 were not admissible because they were not encompassed by s 65(9).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
First disputed portion admitted; second disputed portion not permitted to be led.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'hearsay Evidence' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'admissibility of Witness Interview' 'lies' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'hearsay Evidence' 'non Hearsay Purpose' 'admissibility of Witness Interview' 'lies' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'probative Value and Prejudicial Effect']

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 Murder Trial / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether portions of an interview conducted on 3 November 2001 between investigating police officers and Carlos Camelo were admissible.' 'Whether questions and answers 35 through 42 on pages 4 and 5 of the interview were admissible under s 65(9) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether questions and answers 42 through 47 on pages 31 and 32 of the interview were admissible under s 65(9) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether any admissible evidence should be excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because of prejudice, confusion or misleading effect.']

Ratio Decidendi

Questions and answers 35 through 42 on pages 4 and 5 were admissible because they concerned the same matter as the evidence the accused sought to adduce, namely Mr Camelo's residence at the Jones household, and the prejudice asserted by the accused did not warrant exclusion under ss 135 or 137. Questions and answers 42 through 47 on pages 31 and 32 were not admissible because they were not encompassed by s 65(9).

Court Disposition

First disputed portion admitted; second disputed portion not permitted to be led.

Orders

  • ['The portion of the interview on pages 4 and 5, questions and answers 35 through 42, is admitted.' 'The evidence set out on pages 31 and 32 of the interview, questions and answers 42 through 47, is not permitted to be led.']