R v Keli Lane [No 2]

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Keli Lane, the defendant faced charges in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which included the offence of murder. The case was heard by Justice Hulme, who was tasked with deciding on the admissibility of certain evidence under the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court had to determine whether the evidence of the available escape routes from the hospital where the alleged crime occurred was admissible or if it fell under the exclusionary provisions of section 137 of the Act, which pertains to the potential for unfair prejudice to the accused.

The legal issue at hand was whether the evidence of the fire escape routes could be admitted without unfairly prejudicing the accused. The defence counsel argued that the evidence might lead to an improper conclusion by the jury that the accused used these routes to leave the premises, which could result in unfair prejudice. The prosecution, however, submitted that the evidence had probative value and that any potential prejudice could be mitigated by appropriate jury directions. The court had to balance the probative value of the evidence against its potential to mislead or prejudice the jury.

Justice Hulme concluded that the evidence in question, which related to the existence and accessibility of fire exits and stairs, had significant probative value and was not likely to be misused by the jury if proper instructions were given. The court found that the potential for unfair prejudice could be managed through jury directions and that there was no need to exclude the evidence under section 137 of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the court ruled that photographs of the hospital layout, which were not contemporaneous with the events in question, would unduly emphasise the evidence and were therefore not admissible.

The court ultimately ruled that the evidence of the fire escape routes would be admitted, subject to appropriate jury directions. Photographs of the hospital layout were rejected as documentary material that could unduly emphasise the evidence.