R v Gregory-Roberts [2016] NSWCCA 92

R v Gregory-Roberts [2016] NSWCCA 92

The exclusion of the complaint evidence and the pretext telephone conversations was erroneous: the trial judge incorrectly applied the test for 'fresh in the memory' under s 66 by focusing too heavily on lapse of time and not sufficiently on the nature and emotional impact of the events and other factors. The pretext conversation evidence had sufficient capacity to be admissions adverse to the respondent's interests. Exclusion under ss 135 and 137 was not justified since the probative value, taken at its highest, was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The exclusion substantially weakened the Crown case, engaging the appellate court's jurisdiction and requiring the orders to...

Parties
Appellant: Regina; Respondent: John Gregory-Roberts
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal (criminal) / Appeal From Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Exclusion Before the District Court
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Complaint Evidence, Hearsay Exception, Pretext Telephone Conversations, Fresh in the Memory, Section 66 Evidence Act Exception, Section 55 Relevance, Sections 135 and 137 Exclusion of Evidence, Crown Appeal Powers
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Complaint Evidence Hearsay Exception Pretext Telephone Conversations Fresh in the Memory Section 66 Evidence Act Exception +3 more

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Appellant

John Gregory-Roberts

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal (criminal) / Appeal From Interlocutory Ruling on Evidence Exclusion Before the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the exclusion of complaint evidence and pretext conversations substantially weakened the Crown case under s 5F(3A) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the complaint evidence should have been admitted under s 66 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the pretext telephone conversations constituted admissions and were admissible under s 55 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion of the complaint evidence and the pretext telephone conversations was erroneous: the trial judge incorrectly applied the test for 'fresh in the memory' under s 66 by focusing too heavily on lapse of time and not sufficiently on the nature and emotional impact of the events and other factors. The pretext conversation evidence had sufficient capacity to be admissions adverse to the respondent's interests. Exclusion under ss 135 and 137 was not justified since the probative value, taken at its highest, was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The exclusion substantially weakened the Crown case, engaging the appellate court's jurisdiction and requiring the orders to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • The appeal be upheld.
  • The rulings of 18 and 24 November 2015 be set aside.