DPP v White (Ruling no 1)

[2008] VSC 282

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1568 of  2007

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

LEE WHITE

Ruling No.1

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Wodonga
DATE OF RULING:	11 June 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v White (Ruling No.1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 282

---

Criminal law and procedure – intentionally causing serious injury – evidence – prejudice – evidence excluded.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr A Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Kerry Clancy Solicitor

------

Ruling No.1

HIS HONOUR:

1. I consider that the evidence should not be led in the present form, that is, to say the words, "I'll fuckin' kill you, you cunt", in the first part, and the second part, "I'm going to kill you next."  They are, in my view, quite relevant and admissible.  They are eloquent in the absence of any suggestion of self-defence having preceded them, that is to say, self-defence by Mr White from the suggested attack by Mr Dunstan. 

1. However, I do consider that they are very prejudicial and that in the interests of a fair trial they ought to be excluded because of their specificity of the threat to the woman in question.  Accordingly, I think a formula such as "He then threatened me" is permissible, but not the actual colour of the words, "I'll fucking kill you, you cunt", and "I'm going to kill you next".  I direct that as a matter of fairness, because of the prejudice in the words, those words should not be led, and the formula, "He threatened me", be led in their place.

---