R v Pratten (No 1) [2012] NSWSC 1664

R v Pratten (No 1) [2012] NSWSC 1664

It is not appropriate to make a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence at this preliminary stage because the Court is unaware of what other evidence will be adduced and the assessment of unfair prejudice versus probative value can only be made with all evidence before the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Preliminary Ruling
Outcome
No ruling made at this preliminary stage. Parties' rights to re-agitate reserved.
Legal Topics
['preliminary Ruling on Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['preliminary Ruling on Evidence' 'admissibility of Evidence']

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 / Interlocutory Preliminary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Admissibility of the Statement of Stephen Barnes under s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995' 'Potential unfair prejudice versus probative value of evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

It is not appropriate to make a ruling on the admissibility of the evidence at this preliminary stage because the Court is unaware of what other evidence will be adduced and the assessment of unfair prejudice versus probative value can only be made with all evidence before the jury.

Court Disposition

No ruling made at this preliminary stage. Parties' rights to re-agitate reserved.

Orders

  • ['No ruling is made pursuant to s 192A of the Evidence Act 1995 at this preliminary stage.' "The parties' rights to re-agitate the issues are reserved fully."]