R v Martin (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1353

R v Martin (No 7) [2017] NSWSC 1353

The telephone intercept passage was admissible because, in the context of the accused running a positive case that Ms Fallon and associates committed the April attack, the accused's references to his changed appearance and the absence of any provable link between him and Ms Fallon were capable of affecting the jury's assessment of facts in issue. The availability of innocent inferences was for the jury. The evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing, and the Crown was not changing its case because it continued to allege that the accused was present and participated in the attack, while merely leaving open the possibility that Ms Fallon was also involved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Ruling in Murder, Attempted Murder and Grievous Bodily Harm Trial / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Telephone Intercept Evidence
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
['telephone Intercept' 'admissions' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'alibi' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['telephone Intercept' 'admissions' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'alibi' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']

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 Law Evidence Ruling in Murder, Attempted Murder and Grievous Bodily Harm Trial / Interlocutory Ruling on Admissibility of Telephone Intercept Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the impugned passage of the telephone intercept of 1 April 2015 was capable of constituting an admission or evidence of consciousness of guilt.' 'Whether the evidence had a capacity to mislead or confuse the jury or should be excluded because its probative value was outweighed by unfair prejudice.' 'Whether the Crown was attempting to change its case to one of joint criminal enterprise between the accused and Jessica Honey Fallon.']

Ratio Decidendi

The telephone intercept passage was admissible because, in the context of the accused running a positive case that Ms Fallon and associates committed the April attack, the accused's references to his changed appearance and the absence of any provable link between him and Ms Fallon were capable of affecting the jury's assessment of facts in issue. The availability of innocent inferences was for the jury. The evidence was not unfairly prejudicial, misleading or confusing, and the Crown was not changing its case because it continued to allege that the accused was present and participated in the attack, while merely leaving open the possibility that Ms Fallon was also involved.

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted

Orders

  • ['The evidence in the impugned passage of the telephone intercept of 1 April 2015 is admissible.']