NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : (2002) 133 A Crim R 18
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Regina v Cakovski [2002] NSWSC 632 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70022/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 27 June 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 June 2002
PARTIES : Regina v Daniel Cakovski JUDGMENT OF : O'Keefe J
COUNSEL : Mr Paul Lynch/Mr M Snedden - Crown Mr Bruce Levet - Accused SOLICITORS : DPP, Sydney Downtown - Crown Albert A Macri Partners, Liverpool - Accused CATCHWORDS : Evidence - Unfavourable evidence - What may constitute unfavourable evidence - Includes evidence that may be unfavourable to Crown - Leave to cross examine witness, flexible approach required - Prior inconsistent statement - Time when made - Prejudicial - Unfairly prejudicial - Prejudice - Unfair prejudice - Effect of "is to take into account" LEGISLATION CITED : Evidence Act 1995, ss 38(1), (3); 135(a), (c); 137; 192(2) Regina v Souleyman (1996) 40 NSWLR 727 Regina v Adam (NSWSC, 24 November 1998, unreported) Adam v Regina [2001] HCA 57 CASES CITED : Regina v Pantoja (No 1) NSWSC Barr J (30 October 1996, unreported) Adam v The Queen (2001) HCA 57 (11 October 2001, unreported) Regina v Pantoja NSWCCA 5 November 1998 (unreported) Regina v Kingswell (NSWCCA, 2 September 1998, unreported) Regina v Mansour (NSWSC, 19 November 1996, unreported) DECISION : Leave to re-open and to further cross-examine given.
- 12 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL list
O'Keefe J
Friday, 28 June 2002
70012/00 – REGINA v DANIEL CAKOVSKI
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