R v Page - [2012] NSWDC 307

District Court

New South Wales

Case Title: R v Page

Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWDC 307

Decision Date: 13 February 2012

Before: Cogswell SC DCJ

Decision:
Evidence admitted.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - admissibility - evidence of conduct by the accused evincing an aggressive and threatening state of mind - threatening behaviour an element of robbery - evidence relevant to state of mind of the accused - evidence of events closely connected in time and place - general discretion to exclude evidence - exclusion of prejudicial evidence - unfair prejudice outweighed by high probative value.

Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 135, 137.

Cases Cited: O'Leary v The King [1946] HCA 44; 73 CLR 566.
R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189; 106 A Crim R 510.
R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123; 217 ALR 578.

Category: Interlocutory applications

Parties: Regina (Crown)
Harley Page (accused)

Representation

- Counsel: Counsel:
GW Coles (Crown)
S Corish (accused)

File Number(s): DC 2011/00026212

JUDGMENT

This is a robbery case. The prosecution will allege that the accused, Harley Page, robbed Jordan Smith. The prosecution wants to tender some evidence of the accused being involved in something else a short time before the alleged robbery. The defence objects to the tender of that evidence arguing that it is propensity evidence.
Mr GW Coles, who is appearing as prosecutor in this case, will allege that Harley Page robbed Jordan Smith on 20 January 2011. The prosecution case is that Harley Page engaged in threatening behaviour towards Jordan Smith.
The alleged robbery occurred near, but not at, a service station. Mr Coles wants to call a witness, John Rei, who was getting petrol at the service station. He witnessed two young men who appeared to be drunk "yelling and swearing at a young male who was on a bike". The cyclist rode off and one of the young men threw a bottle at the cyclist and both started to chase him. Mr Rei then went in to pay for his petrol and as he was coming out a young girl came running towards him asking for help because her boyfriend, she said, had just been beaten up. Mr Coles will claim that Mr Harley Page was responsible for the beating up of the young girl's boyfriend and stealing property from him.
Mr S Corish, of counsel, who appears for Harley Page, objects to the tender of the evidence from Mr Rei about what happened with the cyclist whom the two young men chased away. Mr Coles relies on the principle of admissibility referred to by the High Court in O'Leary v The King [1946] HCA 44; 73 CLR 566. He also referred me to decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeal of this State in R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189; 106 A Crim R 510 and R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123; 217 ALR 578.
In Adam at [30] the Court - comprising Spigelman CJ, James…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Page

Details

AGLC: R v Page [2012] NSWDC 307
Case: [2012] NSWDC 307
Decision Date: 13 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Page, the respondent was charged with robbery and assault. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue for determination was whether evidence of conduct by the accused, which demonstrated an aggressive and threatening state of mind, was admissible in court. The respondent argued that such evidence should be excluded on the grounds that it was unfairly prejudicial and had a low probative value. The prosecution contended that the evidence was relevant to establishing the accused's state of mind at the time of the alleged offences and was therefore admissible.

The court considered the principles of admissibility for evidence of a person's conduct and the discretion to exclude evidence that might be unfairly prejudicial. It was noted that evidence of threatening behaviour could be relevant to proving the element of robbery, as such behaviour was integral to the offence. The court also acknowledged the general discretion to exclude evidence that might cause unfair prejudice to the accused. However, it found that in this instance, the probative value of the evidence outweighed any potential prejudice. The events in question were closely connected in time and place to the alleged offences, further supporting the relevance of the evidence.

Ultimately, the court decided to admit the contested evidence, balancing the prejudicial effect against its high probative value. The evidence was deemed necessary for the jury to understand the context and circumstances of the alleged crimes. The respondent's argument for exclusion was not upheld, and the evidence was allowed to be presented to the jury. The court's decision was grounded in the necessity to ensure a fair trial while also considering the relevance and probative value of the evidence in question.

Orders

Orders of the court

Evidence admitted.

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.

Case Title:	R v Page
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2012] NSWDC 307
Decision Date:	13 February 2012
Before:	Cogswell SC DCJ
Decision:	Evidence admitted.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Evidence - admissibility - evidence of conduct by the accused evincing an aggressive and threatening state of mind - threatening behaviour an element of robbery - evidence relevant to state of mind of the accused - evidence of events closely connected in time and place - general discretion to exclude evidence - exclusion of prejudicial evidence - unfair prejudice outweighed by high probative value.
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ss 135, 137.
Cases Cited:	O'Leary v The King [1946] HCA 44; 73 CLR 566. R v Adam [1999] NSWCCA 189; 106 A Crim R 510. R v Player [2000] NSWCCA 123; 217 ALR 578.
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Harley Page (accused)
Representation
- Counsel:	Counsel: GW Coles (Crown) S Corish (accused)
File Number(s):	DC 2011/00026212