R v Alexander CITTADINI [2008] NSWCCA 256

R v Alexander CITTADINI [2008] NSWCCA 256

By majority, the Court held that the evidence of other defects in the yacht, sought to be tendered in support of the Crown's alternative case that there was a negligent system of supervision or quality control during construction, was not tendency evidence for the purposes of s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 and therefore not inadmissible on that basis. The trial judge's ruling that treated it as tendency evidence was vacated.

Parties
Appellant: REGINA; Respondent: Alexander Cittadini
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Ruling that the evidence in question was tendency evidence is vacated (majority decision).
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Tendency Evidence, Criminal Negligence, Manslaughter by Omission
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Tendency Evidence Criminal Negligence Manslaughter by Omission

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REGINA

Appellant

Alexander Cittadini

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of other defects in yacht construction is tendency evidence under Evidence Act 1995 s 97
  2. 2 Whether the evidence is admissible or properly excluded as tendency evidence

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, the Court held that the evidence of other defects in the yacht, sought to be tendered in support of the Crown's alternative case that there was a negligent system of supervision or quality control during construction, was not tendency evidence for the purposes of s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 and therefore not inadmissible on that basis. The trial judge's ruling that treated it as tendency evidence was vacated.

Court Disposition

Ruling that the evidence in question was tendency evidence is vacated (majority decision).

Orders

  • The ruling that the evidence in question was tendency evidence is vacated.