R v Cranston (No 9)

In the case of R v Cranston (No 9), the accused faced allegations of conspiracy under the Criminal Code. The case involved a complex web of commercial transactions and alleged admissions made by the accused, which the prosecution sought to use as evidence. The primary dispute centred around the admissibility of these alleged admissions under the Evidence Act 1995, particularly whether they were influenced by oppressive conduct or whether their prejudicial effect outweighed their probative value.

The court was tasked with determining whether the alleged admissions made by the accused were influenced by oppressive conduct, which would render them inadmissible under section 84 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the probative value of these admissions was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act. Given the sophisticated nature of the accused and their commercial acumen, the court had to closely scrutinise the circumstances under which the alleged admissions were made.

The court found that the accused, who were experienced businesspersons, understood the implications of the threats made by Mr Rostankovski as an opportunity rather than oppressive conduct. They acted promptly to mitigate the potential threat by creating documents that would shift blame and potentially exonerate themselves. The court concluded that the accused were not influenced by any oppressive conduct and that the admissions were made voluntarily. Moreover, the court determined that the probative value of the evidence did not substantially outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice. Consequently, the alleged admissions were deemed inadmissible.

The court ruled that the alleged admissions made by the accused were not influenced by oppressive conduct and could not be used as evidence in the trial. This decision was based on the accused's understanding of the situation and their proactive steps to address the potential threats. The court also found that the prejudicial effect of the admissions outweighed their probative value, leading to their exclusion from the trial.