Cessnock City Council v Courtney (No. 2) [2004] NSWLEC 487

Cessnock City Council v Courtney (No. 2) [2004] NSWLEC 487

The two sentences are admissible if admitted solely for corroborative purposes and not to draw an unfavourable inference, as this does not infringe s 89 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Parties
Prosecutor: Cessnock City Council; Defendant: Wayne Leslie Courtney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2004
Procedural Posture
Prosecution / Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Objection dismissed, evidence admitted for limited purpose
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Corroboration, Drawing Inferences From Silence
Evidence Admissibility of Evidence Corroboration Drawing Inferences From Silence

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

Cessnock City Council

Prosecutor

Wayne Leslie Courtney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Prosecution / Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two sentences from an affidavit should be disallowed under s 89 of the Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The two sentences are admissible if admitted solely for corroborative purposes and not to draw an unfavourable inference, as this does not infringe s 89 of the Evidence Act 1995.

Court Disposition

Objection dismissed, evidence admitted for limited purpose

Orders

  • The two sentences are admitted as evidence confined solely for corroborative purposes.