R v AKB (No. 6) [2018] NSWSC 1111

R v AKB (No. 6) [2018] NSWSC 1111

The evidence is admissible under s 65 because it forms part of the relationship evidence and has sufficient probative value. The risk of prejudice can be addressed by appropriate hearsay warnings, especially given the presence of contradictory evidence regarding the ability to lock the door.

Parties
Prosecution: Crown; Accused: [AKB]
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling Prior to Trial or Verdict
Outcome
Application to adduce evidence from Zahra Najafi allowed
Legal Topics
Relationship Evidence, Hearsay, Prejudicial Evidence, Probative Value
Criminal Law Evidence Relationship Evidence Hearsay Prejudicial Evidence Probative Value

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Prosecution

[AKB]

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidentiary Ruling Prior to Trial or Verdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether hearsay evidence from the deceased has sufficient probative value to be admitted despite potential prejudice to the accused

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence is admissible under s 65 because it forms part of the relationship evidence and has sufficient probative value. The risk of prejudice can be addressed by appropriate hearsay warnings, especially given the presence of contradictory evidence regarding the ability to lock the door.

Court Disposition

Application to adduce evidence from Zahra Najafi allowed

Orders

  • The evidence in answers 22 and 23 of the statement of Zahra Najafi may be adduced.