Trajovski v The Queen

Case

[2017] NSWDC 325

26 July 2017


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Trajovski v The Queen [2017] NSWDC 325 [2017] NSWDC 325 26 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Trajovski, was convicted by the Local Court of two offences of recovering stolen goods. He appealed to a higher court, arguing that the Crown should not have been allowed to call rebuttal evidence when he first claimed, during his testimony, that an item had been lent to him by a neighbour. The prosecution had no prior notice of this defence. Additionally, he argued that the prosecution should have served a notice under section 98(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995, as the two different items stolen from a construction site, along with other property, constituted coincidence evidence. The appeal was dismissed by the higher court.

The court examined whether the Crown was entitled to call rebuttal evidence when the appellant first mentioned, during his testimony, that an item had been lent to him by a neighbour. The prosecution had no prior notice of this defence. The court also considered whether the prosecution was required to serve a notice under section 98(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995, as the two different items stolen from a construction site, along with other property, constituted coincidence evidence.

In dismissing the appeal, the court found that the Crown was entitled to call rebuttal evidence when the appellant first mentioned, during his testimony, that an item had been lent to him by a neighbour. The court held that the prosecution had no prior notice of this defence, and it was permissible for them to call rebuttal evidence to counter this new claim. Furthermore, the court held that the prosecution was not required to serve a notice under section 98(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995, as the two different items stolen from a construction site, along with other property, did not constitute coincidence evidence. The court found that the items were stolen from the same location and were part of the same theft, and therefore, did not fall within the scope of section 98(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995.

The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions of the appellant were upheld.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Criminal Law

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Evidence

  • Causation

  • Recent possession of stolen property

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

9

Statutory Material Cited

2

Titheradge v The King [1917] HCA 76
Titheradge v The King [1917] HCA 76
Dhanhoa v The Queen [2003] HCA 40