DPP and DNM

[2013] VCC 2197

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Case No. CR-12-00512

Director of Public Prosecutions

v

DNM

---

JUDGE:	CANNON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 May 2013
DATE OF RULING:	7 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP and DNM
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 2197

REASONS FOR RULING
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:             Ruling – Observations of complainant made by police officer – Crown application to lead this evidence

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K. Churchill	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Kelly	Robert Stary Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1       For the reasons enunciated by Mr Kelly and those I have foreshadowed in discussion, I am of the view that the evidence sought to be adduced by the Crown, although it has some probative value, it is lacking, in any event, because of what has transpired before these observations are made of the complainant.

2       Given the context in which the observations are made- that is, a police officer is making these observations after the complainant has given a detailed statement as to what she said transpired with the accused man, which includes allegations about a GPS and a gun et cetera, I take the view that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused, as the distress that the complainant may have been seen to be exhibiting at that time whilst it may be because of what she was asked to perform, it may derive from other areas. It is just too dangerous, in my view, to allow a jury to consider the evidence, as they may well place undue weight on it, despite direction.