NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision: 178 A Crim R 408
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION: R v GAC [2007] NSWCCA 315 This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 10 October 2007
JUDGMENT DATE: 21 November 2007
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hulme J at 90; Hislop J at 91
DECISION: Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Crown appeal against ruling on evidence - s 5F(3A) Criminal Appeal Act - exclusion of evidence must substantially weaken prosecution's case - jurisdictional requirement - whether that can be found when no current trial - what constitutes prosecution's case when trial is a future matter - court does not consider credibility or reliability of evidence in prosecution's case - whether there can be substantial weakening if evidence apart from excluded evidence, if accepted, would establish commission of offence - would be substantial weakening. TENDENCY EVIDENCE - whether error in holding probative value does not substantially outweigh prejudicial effect - involves exercise of discretion or evaluative judgment - no error shown.
LEGISLATION CITED: Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987, s 11
Attorney-General for the State of New South Wales v X (2000) 49 NSWLR 653; Em v The Queen [2007] HCA 46; Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; Jacara Pty Ltd v Perpetual Trustees WA Ltd (2000) 106 FCR 51; Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; Perpetual Trustee Company Ltd v Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41; R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131; R v Blick (2000) 111 A Crim R 326; R v Carusi (1997) 92 A Crim R 52; R v Cook [2004] NSWCCA 52; CASES CITED: R v ELD [2004] NSWCCA 219; R v Ellis (2003) 58 NSWLR 700; R v Fletcher (2005) 156 A Crim R 308; [2005] NSWCCA 338; R v Milakovic [2004] NSWCCA 199; R v Milton [2004] NSWCCA 195; R v Nassif [2004] NSWCCA 443; R v Ngatikaura [2006] NSWCCA 161; R v RN [2005] NSWCCA 413; R v Shamouil (2006) 66 NSWLR 228; R v SJRC [2007] NSWCCA 142; R v Watkins (2005) 153 A Crim R 434; R v Zhang (2005) 158 A Crim R 504.
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