R v Ellis

Case [2022] NSWDC 3

District Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ellis [2022] NSWDC 3
Hearing dates: 31 January 2022 – 2 February 2022
Date of orders: 1 February 2022
Decision date: 02 February 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Priestley SC, DCJ
Decision:

See [53 - 56] 

Catchwords:

EVIDENCE — Discretions — Exclusion of evidence — Criminal proceedings - ERISP

Legislation Cited:

Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) LEPRA

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Cook v The Queen [2016] VSCA 174.

Phan (2001) 123 A Crim R 30

Clark (1997) 97 A Crim R 414

Ireland (1970) 126 CLR 321

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ellis (Accused)
Representation: Morters SC Counsel for the DPP
Segal Counsel for the Accused
File Number(s): 2020/00257051
Publication restriction: Restricted until after trial.
Restriction Lifted.

Judgment

Introduction

  1. The accused, Keysha Ellis, is to be tried on an indictment containing 4 counts, with counts 2, 3 and 4 being alternative charges. Count 1 alleges armed robbery, count 2 robbery, count 3 maintaining and assisting Daniel Ashenhurst when knowing he had committed armed robbery and count 4 maintaining and assisting Daniel Ashenhurst knowing he had committed robbery.
  2. The trial was listed to commence on 31 January 2022 and a jury was empanelled that day and asked to return on 2 February 2022 when it was anticipated certain pre-trial issues would be resolved. The accused had filed a notice of motion dated 17 January 2022 seeking the exclusion of evidence relating to a tracking device that had been worn allegedly by Mr Ashenhurst. Mr Ashenhurst has pleaded guilty to armed robbery and has been sentenced.  It remains for the Crown to prove in this trial that he committed the offence hence the relevance of the tracking device material.
  3. As it has transpired that order sought by the motion was not pressed with the parties being able to resolve the issue.
  4. In submissions provided by the accused and dated 16 January 2022 two further matters were raised. Firstly the accused seeks to exclude either entirely or in part the ERISP of the accused. The second issue related to the way in which character evidence would be treated at the trial.  The issue as to character had two different aspects. One related to evidence that the accused was on a methadone program. The second aspect was one the parties initially reached agreement on to the following effect, though just prior to the delivery of these rulings the Court was informed the agreement set out at [4.2] was no longer in place, and that this did not give rise to the need for any further ruling:
    1. It is agreed that the accused can in either cross examination of a Crown witness or in evidence in chief of the accused raise character in a limited respect namely to the extent that the accused has no criminal history as to robbery or armed robbery. The Crown has agreed to this and further that it will not seek to…

Continue reading R v Ellis

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ellis [2022] NSWDC 3
Case
[2022] NSWDC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ellis, the defendant was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The dispute involved the admissibility of certain evidence gathered during the investigation, specifically whether it complied with the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting or excluding the evidence in question.

The legal issues before the court centred on the proper application of the discretionary provisions outlined in the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The primary question was whether the evidence obtained during the investigation was admissible under section 13 of the Act, which allows for the exclusion of evidence if its admission would be unfair to the defendant. The court also considered whether the evidence was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have.

In its reasoning, the court examined the principles established in previous cases such as Ellis v R, where it was held that the trial judge has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence. The court found that the trial judge had correctly applied the statutory discretions, taking into account the nature of the evidence and its potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant and that its probative value was not substantially outweighed by any prejudicial effect. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the decision of the trial judge and to dismiss the appeal. The court did not find any error in the admission of the evidence, and thus, the conviction stood as determined by the lower court.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [53 - 56]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.