R v Krivosic
Case
•
[2021] NSWSC 444
•03 May 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Krivosic [2021] NSWSC 444
[2021] NSWSC 444
03 May 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Krivosic was heard in a court where the defendant, Krivosic, was charged with various offences. The Crown sought an advanced ruling on the admissibility and use of evidence under section 192A of the Evidence Act, given the unavailability of a key witness. The witness, who had made a previous representation, was deemed unreliable due to unsuccessful attempts to secure their attendance at court. The court was tasked with determining whether the witness's previous representation was admissible as evidence under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act.
The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of the witness's previous representation. The court had to assess whether the witness's representation met the criteria for admissibility under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act, which requires that the representation is reliable and not fabricated. The court also considered whether the unavailability of the witness justified the admission of the representation and whether the reliability of the representation was sufficiently established.
The court found that the witness's previous representation was highly probable to be reliable and not fabricated, satisfying the criteria under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act. The court held that the representation was admissible because it was highly probable that it was not fabricated. The unavailability of the witness justified the use of the previous representation as evidence. The court concluded that the previous representation was reliable enough to be admitted as evidence, given the circumstances.
The court ruled that the witness's previous representation was admissible as evidence under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act. The ruling allowed the Crown to use the representation in their case against Krivosic. The court's decision was based on the high probability that the representation was reliable and not fabricated, as well as the unavailability of the witness. This ruling provided clarity on the admissibility of the evidence in question.
The legal issues before the court involved the admissibility of the witness's previous representation. The court had to assess whether the witness's representation met the criteria for admissibility under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act, which requires that the representation is reliable and not fabricated. The court also considered whether the unavailability of the witness justified the admission of the representation and whether the reliability of the representation was sufficiently established.
The court found that the witness's previous representation was highly probable to be reliable and not fabricated, satisfying the criteria under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act. The court held that the representation was admissible because it was highly probable that it was not fabricated. The unavailability of the witness justified the use of the previous representation as evidence. The court concluded that the previous representation was reliable enough to be admitted as evidence, given the circumstances.
The court ruled that the witness's previous representation was admissible as evidence under section 65(2) of the Evidence Act. The ruling allowed the Crown to use the representation in their case against Krivosic. The court's decision was based on the high probability that the representation was reliable and not fabricated, as well as the unavailability of the witness. This ruling provided clarity on the admissibility of the evidence in question.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Admissibility of Evidence
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Krivosic [2021] NSWSC 444
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
1