Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1666 Hearing dates: 28 February 2012, 09 March 2012, 12 March 2012, 14 March 2012, 21 March, 2 April 2012 Decision date: 02 April 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: 1. The document is admissible in the proceedings. Catchwords: CRIMINAL - Interlocutory proceedings - admissibility of evidence - tender of document - business record Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Timothy Charles Pratten (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K. Chapple SC with B. Hatfield (Crown) M. Leighton-Daly (Defendant) File Number(s): 2010/315475 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. HIS HONOUR: The Court is dealing with an objection by the Crown to the tender of a document by the accused. The accused seeks to tender documents, that he says are exculpatory. Amounts, the Crown says, are undeclared income of the accused are treated as loans in these documents. I allow the tender. 2. I do so on the basis that the document is a business record. 3. While the veracity of the contents of the documents may ultimately be the subject of contest because they were compiled by persons seeking to exculpate the accused, nevertheless they are matters that can properly and fairly be dealt with in submissions to the jury. 4. It seems to me that the document, notwithstanding that it dates from a time after the offences in question, could rationally affect directly or indirectly the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, being the relationship between the accused, the companies, and the purchase of the property. I will admit the document. 5. Lastly, the Crown relies on s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995. While the weight or acceptability of the material is ultimately a matter for the jury, in a sense, I consider the probative value is not outweighed by any unfairness that cannot be dealt with appropriately by the Crown. ********** Amendments 29 April 2016 - amended case name in coversheet DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 29 April 2016