NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Parkes [2024] NSWSC 269 Hearing dates: 8 March 2024; 14 March 2024 Date of orders: 14 March 2024 Decision date: 21 March 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: N Adams J Decision: (1) The application to exclude portions of the ERISP and listening device material under s 90 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is refused. (2) The application to exclude a portion of the listening device material under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is allowed. Catchwords: EVIDENCE — murder trial — joint criminal enterprise – explanation for accused's presence at scene – where cellmate concocted story with the accused – Defence application to exclude on s 90 unfairness – cellmate acting individually not as agent of the state – no trickery involved in ERISP – evidence admitted. EVIDENCE — murder trial —joint criminal enterprise – explanation for accused's presence at scene – where cellmate concocted story with the accused – Defence application to exclude statement for s 137 unfair prejudice – complexity of required lies direction to the jury – unique circumstances of cellmate involvement in lies – risk of jury misuse of impugned statement – lack of credibility of cellmate – impugned statement excluded. Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 90, 137 Surveillance Devices Act 2007 (NSW) Cases Cited: Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63 Em v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 67; [2007] HCA 46 IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37 R v Burton (2013) 237 A Crim R 238; [2013] NSWCCA 335 R v Chase (a pseudonym) [2018] NSWCCA 71 R v Officer A [2023] NSWSC 1265 R v Rice & Ors (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 1525 R v Rogerson; R v McNamara (No 26) [2016] NSWSC 141 R v Swaffield; Pavic v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 159; [1998] HCA 1 R v Tortell (No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1665 at [33]. Regina v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52 The Queen v Bauer (2018) 92 ALJR 846; [2018] HCA 40 Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex (Crown) Benjamin Troy Parkes (Accused) Representation: Counsel: D Robinson (Crown) N Steel (Accused)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate