R v Do (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 111

R v Do (No. 2) [2015] NSWSC 111

The evidence regarding the prenuptial agreement and visa applications, although of varying probative value, forms part of the context of the relationship between the accused and the deceased and assists in explaining the alleged events. There is no unfair prejudice sufficient to outweigh the probative value, and the evidence is admissible.

Parties
Prosecution: Crown; Defendant: Tony Thao Do
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Evidentiary/admissibility Ruling Prior to Trial
Outcome
Applications to exclude evidence refused; specified evidence is admissible.
Legal Topics
Evidence, Relationship Evidence, Admissibility, Murder
Criminal Law Evidence Relationship Evidence Admissibility Murder

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Crown

Prosecution

Tony Thao Do

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Evidentiary/admissibility Ruling Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relationship evidence concerning a prenuptial agreement and visa status between the accused and deceased should be admitted
  2. 2 Determination of whether probative value of the evidence outweighs any unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence regarding the prenuptial agreement and visa applications, although of varying probative value, forms part of the context of the relationship between the accused and the deceased and assists in explaining the alleged events. There is no unfair prejudice sufficient to outweigh the probative value, and the evidence is admissible.

Court Disposition

Applications to exclude evidence refused; specified evidence is admissible.

Orders

  • Relationship evidence relating to the prenuptial agreement is admissible.
  • ERISP passages concerning the prenuptial agreement are not excluded.