R v Smith [2014] NSWSC 768

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Smith [2014] NSWSC 768 Hearing dates: 20/05/2014 Decision date: 20 May 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Garling J Decision: Pursuant to section 103(1) of the Evidence Act 1995, I grant leave to counsel for the accused to cross-examine Mr Perkins with respect to those five offences Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - witnesses - cross-examination - CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - judicial discretion to admit or exclude evidence - Evidence Act 1995; s 103(1) - leave to adduce evidence in cross-examination of criminal convictions; application for - otherwise contrary to Evidence Act 1995; s 102 - credibility rule - five dishonesty offences - reliability and credibility of witness Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: The Crown Graham Smith (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr M Barr (Crown) Ms K Traill (Accused) Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) SCT Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2013/23883

JudGment - Application to Adduce Credibility Evidence 1Miss Traill, counsel for the accused, makes an application for leave to adduce evidence in the cross-examination of Mr Grant Perkins which would otherwise be contrary to section 102 of the Evidence Act 1995, namely, the credibility rule. 2Miss Traill's application deals with five convictions commencing on the 28 January 2009 and concluding on 13 July 2012. The identified offences for which Mr Perkins was convicted in that period would, in my view, be properly regarded as offences which bespeak dishonesty. They are matters which affect the credibility of Mr Perkins and, consequently the reliability of his evidence, which is a most important factor in the case. 3Mr Grant Perkins gives some evidence as to what he saw and heard at the time of the shooting. That evidence would, if accepted, be antithetical to the accused's case that, at the time of the shooting, he was acting in selfdefence. 4Accordingly, I am satisfied that cross-examination in respect of those five offences may or could substantially affect the assessment of the credibility of Mr Perkins.