R v CJ [2016] NSWDC 110

The proposed tendency evidence is inherently weak due to being based on a single, equivocal incident, involving conduct that could not have caused the injuries suffered by MJ; opportunity alone is not sufficient to connect CJ to the injuries; thus, the evidence fails to satisfy the significant probative value threshold under s 97 Evidence Act 1995 and the prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value under s 101 Evidence Act 1995.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 24 June 2016
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome: Tendency evidence ruled inadmissible; Crown's application refused.
Legal Topics: ['tendency Evidence' 'admissibility' 'probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect' 'relevance']

['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'admissibility' 'probative Value Vs Prejudicial Effect' 'relevance']

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

1 ["Is the tendency evidence relating to CJ's handling of MJ admissible as having significant probative value under Evidence Act 1995?" 'Does the probative value of the tendency evidence substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect?' 'Is a single incident sufficient to prove tendency under s 97 Evidence Act 1995?']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Tendency evidence ruled inadmissible; Crown's application refused.

Orders

['The tendency evidence of EP is excluded; Crown not permitted to adduce the proposed tendency evidence.']