R v Pratten (No 3)

Case •

[2012] NSWSC 1666

•

02 April 2012

No judgment structure available for this case.

Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 3) [2012] NSWSC 1666
Hearing dates:28 February 2012, 09 March 2012, 12 March 2012, 14 March 2012, 21 March, 2 April 2012
Decision date: 02 April 2012
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Rothman J
Decision:

1. The document is admissible in the proceedings.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL - Interlocutory proceedings - admissibility of evidence - tender of document - business record
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Timothy Charles Pratten (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
K. Chapple SC with
B. Hatfield (Crown)
M. Leighton-Daly (Defendant)
File Number(s):2010/315475

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

  1. HIS HONOUR: The Court is dealing with an objection by the Crown to the tender of a document by the accused. The accused seeks to tender documents, that he says are exculpatory. Amounts, the Crown says, are undeclared income of the accused are treated as loans in these documents. I allow the tender.

  2. I do so on the basis that the document is a business record.

  3. While the veracity of the contents of the documents may ultimately be the subject of contest because they were compiled by persons seeking to exculpate the accused, nevertheless they are matters that can properly and fairly be dealt with in submissions to the jury.

  4. It seems to me that the document, notwithstanding that it dates from a time after the offences in question, could rationally affect directly or indirectly the probability of the existence of a fact in issue, being the relationship between the accused, the companies, and the purchase of the property. I will admit the document.

  5. Lastly, the Crown relies on s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995. While the weight or acceptability of the material is ultimately a matter for the jury, in a sense, I consider the probative value is not outweighed by any unfairness that cannot be dealt with appropriately by the Crown.

**********

Amendments

29 April 2016 - amended case name in coversheet

Decision last updated: 29 April 2016

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

1