Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 4) [2012] NSWSC 1667 Hearing dates: 12 March 2012, 14 March 2012, 19 March 2012 - 23 March 2012, 26 March 2012 - 29 March 2012, 02 April 2012, 04 April 2012 -05 April 2012, 11 April 2012, 14 April 2012 - 30 April 2012, 01 May 2012 - 02 May 2012, 04 May 2012, 07 May 2012, 09 May 2012 Decision date: 09 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: 1. The document, Exhibit G, is admissible in the proceedings. Catchwords: CRIMINAL - Interlocutory proceedings - admissibility of evidence - tender of document - relevance - danger of unfair prejudice does not outweigh its probative value 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: In relation to document 29 in Voir Dire Exhibit G, objection is taken on the grounds of relevance, and if the document be relevant, that its unfair prejudice to the accused outweighs its probative value. Of course, unfair prejudice in that sense means the danger of unfair prejudice. 2. The unfair prejudice to which the accused points is the prejudice associated with ownership of a vehicle, which might give the impression that the accused was well-to-do, in circumstances where otherwise the evidence might show that his income was small or less than one would normally associate with the ownership of a luxury vehicle. 3. It seems to me, the first question really is the relevance question. If the material is not relevant, then one does not reach consideration of s 137 of theEvidence Act 1995, or indeed s 135, if there is work for s 135 to do. 4. The documents, together with other material, disclose, firstly, a lack of strict adherence to the corporate identities, which are said to own or pay expenses of equipment used by Mr Pratten; and, secondly, it is said by the Crown, the ownership by one of the corporate entities of something to which Mr Pratten is entitled as a benefit, which the Crown says leads inexorably to the proposition that it was of value that ought to have been declared as income. 5. It is unnecessary for the Court to comment on the last aspect of that proposition. It seems to me the Crown case as a whole is based upon the proposition that equipment owned or operated by associated private companies of an individual, and used by the individual, is a benefit that must be declared as income. If that be right, and, as I said, I am not going to comment on it, then this material is relevant to that proposition. It is also relevant, it seems to me, to the lack of strict adherence to corporate separation, which perhaps goes to the same issue, although may be exculpatory. I think if it be exculpatory, it would not render it irrelevant. On the contrary, it might make it more relevant. Therefore, I consider that the documents behind tab 29 are relevant. 6. As to the danger of unfair prejudice, it seems to me that the probative value of the material is not particularly high, but the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused must take into account the directions that might be given by the judge to the jury on these issues, and I consider that the danger of unfair prejudice in that light is very small. 7. I do not consider in those circumstances that the probative value of the material is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, and I would rule it admissible. ********** 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