Regina v Linard SHAMOUIL [2006] NSWCCA 112

Reported Decision : 66 NSWLR 228

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Regina v Linard SHAMOUIL [2006] NSWCCA 112

HEARING DATE(S): 16 February 2006

JUDGMENT DATE: 12 April 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1; Simpson J at 81; Adams J at 82

DECISION: 1 Appeal allowed; 2 The judgment of Judge Maguire of 23 November 2005 be set aside.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – Crown Appeal – Exclusion of Evidence – Jurisdiction to hear appeal – Whether exclusion "substantially weakened" Crown case – Exclusion of evidence of cogency or force will "substantially weaken" Crown case – Evidence to be considered on the assumption that it is accepted by the jury – Criminal Appeal Act 1912, s5F(3A) - EVIDENCE – Probative value – Whether reliability or weight relevant to determination of probative value – Rarely relevant – Evidence Act 1995, s 137 - CRIMINAL LAW – Crown Appeal – Whether trial judge erred in excluding evidence on the basis that its probative value outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice – Where trial judge took into account credibility when assessing probative value – Where trial judge failed to identify manner in which prejudice unfair – Evidence Act 1995, s 137

Crimes Act 1900: ss 29, 30 LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912: s5F(3A) Evidence Act 1995: ss 55(1), 97(1)(b), 98(1)(b), 101, 103(1), 115, 116, 135, 137, 165

Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96 Bendix Autolite Corp v Midwesco Enterprises Inc, 486 US 888 (1988) Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593 Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 R v AB [2001] NSWCCA 496 R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131 CASES CITED: R v Carusi (1997) 92 A Crim R 52 R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52 R v Lameri [2004] NSWCCA 217 R v Lisoff [1999] NSWCCA 364 R v Milakovic [2004] NSWCCA 199 R v NKS [2004] NSWCCA 144 R v Rahme [2004] NSWCCA 233 R v Singh-Bal (1997) 92 A Crim R 397 R v Yates [2002] NSWCCA 520