R v Droudis (No. 8) [2016] NSWSC 1276

R v Droudis (No. 8) [2016] NSWSC 1276

Given the existence of prior inconsistent statements by OK regarding events at the Penrith Swimming Pool with Monis, and the significance to a central trial issue, leave is granted to the Crown under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine the witness.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Amirah Droudis
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Procedural Ruling, Judge Alone
Outcome
Leave granted to the Crown under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine witness OK on prior inconsistent statements.
Legal Topics
Murder, Evidence, Procedural Ruling, Prior Inconsistent Statement, Cross Examination Under S.38 Evidence Act 1995
Criminal Law Murder Evidence Procedural Ruling Prior Inconsistent Statement Cross Examination Under S.38 Evidence Act 1995

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Amirah Droudis

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Procedural Ruling, Judge Alone

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted to the Crown under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine its own witness (OK) regarding prior inconsistent statements

Ratio Decidendi

Given the existence of prior inconsistent statements by OK regarding events at the Penrith Swimming Pool with Monis, and the significance to a central trial issue, leave is granted to the Crown under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine the witness.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to the Crown under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine witness OK on prior inconsistent statements.

Orders

  • Leave is granted to the Crown under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 to cross-examine OK with respect to the prior inconsistent statements outlined in the judgment.