LawCite Search | LawCite Markup Tool | Help | Feedback

Law
Cite


Cases Referring to this Case | Law Reform Reports Referring to this Case | Law Journal Articles Referring to this Case | Legislation Cited | Cases and Articles Cited

Help

R v Le   flag  32

[2000] NSWCCA 49
Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal
Australia - New South Wales
7th March, 2000

Cases Referring to this Case

Case Name Citation(s) Court Jurisdiction Date †  Full Text Citation Index
R v Bauer [2018] HCA 40; 359 ALR 359; (2018) 92 ALJR 846 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 12 Sep 2018 AustLII flag 37
A2 v R; Magennis v R; Vaziri v R [2018] NSWCCA 174 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 10 Aug 2018 AustLII flag 5
Lawson & Lawson [2017] FamCA 42 Family Court of Australia Australia 2 Feb 2017 AustLII flag
R v Droudis (No 11) [2016] NSWSC 1319 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 14 Sep 2016 AustLII flag 1
Green (a pseudonym) v R [2015] VSCA 279 Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal Australia - Victoria 19 Oct 2015 AustLII flag 2
Leighton v R [2015] NSWCCA 156 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 24 Jun 2015 AustLII flag
Pate (a pseudonym) v R [2015] VSCA 110 Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal Australia - Victoria 20 May 2015 AustLII flag 5
R v Steele [2015] NSWDC 100 District Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 12 Feb 2015 AustLII flag
Jones v R [2014] NSWCCA 280; (2014) 246 A Crim R 425 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 1 Dec 2014 AustLII flag 10
Clay (a Pseudonym) v R [2014] VSCA 269; (2014) 43 VR 405; (2014) 245 A Crim R 470 Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal Australia - Victoria 30 Oct 2014 AustLII flag 13
R v Xie (No 4) [2014] NSWSC 500 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 30 Apr 2014 AustLII flag 6
New South Wales v Vinh Le [2013] NSWSC 348 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 16 Apr 2013 AustLII flag 1
R v Smith (No 5) [2011] NSWSC 1459 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 28 Nov 2011 AustLII flag
BJS v R [2011] NSWCCA 239 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 3 Nov 2011 AustLII flag 15
City of Sydney v Streetscape Projects (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 364 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 3 May 2011 AustLII flag 9
DMS Powders v Gondwana Chemicals Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 994 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 3 Sep 2010 AustLII flag 1
P & N Quality Smallgoods Pty Ltd v Seven Network (Operations) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 841 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 30 Jul 2010 AustLII flag 1
R v Armstrong [2010] NSWSC 801 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 27 Jul 2010 AustLII flag 1
R v Rg [2006] NSWSC 15 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 30 Jan 2006 AustLII flag 1
Eld v R [2005] NSWCCA 476 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 2 Dec 2005 AustLII flag
R v Pham [2005] NSWCCA 9 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 4 Feb 2005 AustLII flag 2
R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319; (2003) 58 NSWLR 700; 144 A Crim R 1 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 5 Nov 2003 AustLII flag 118
R v Folbigg [2003] NSWCCA 17 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 13 Feb 2003 AustLII flag 6
R v Andrews [2003] NSWCCA 7 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 6 Feb 2003 AustLII flag 9
R v Lawrence Holt [2001] NSWSC 232 Supreme Court of New South Wales Australia - New South Wales 30 Mar 2001 AustLII flag 1
R v AB [2000] QCA 520 Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal Australia - Queensland 19 Dec 2000 AustLII flag 12
R v Ogd (No 2) [2000] NSWCCA 404; (2000) 50 NSWLR 433 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 13 Oct 2000 AustLII flag 48
R v DH [2000] NSWCCA 360 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 15 Sep 2000 AustLII flag 26
R v MM [2000] NSWCCA 78; (2000) 112 A Crim R 519 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 24 May 2000 AustLII flag 19

Law Reform Reports Referring to this Case

Journal Article Title Citation(s) Author Jurisdiction Date †  Full Text Citation Index
Uniform Evidence Law [2005] ALRC 102 Australian Law Reform Commission Australia circa 2005 AustLII flag

Law Journal Articles Referring to this Case

Journal Article Title Citation(s) Author Jurisdiction Date †  Full Text Citation Index
"Tendency Evidence in Hughes v R: Similarity, Probative Value and Admissibility" (2016) 38 Sydney Law Review 491 Hamer, David Australia circa 2016 AustLII flag
"Similar Fact Reasoning in Phillips: Artificial, Disjointed and Pernicious" (2007) 30 University of New South Wales Law Journal 609 Hamer, David Australia circa 2007 AustLII flag 6

Legislation Cited

Legislation Name Provision
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s55, s56, s59, s66, s97, s101, s102, s135, s137
Criminal Appeal Act (NSW) s6
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Criminal Appeal Rules (NSW) s4, s55

Cases and Articles Cited

Case Name Citation(s) Court Jurisdiction Date †  Full Text Citation Index
R v Merritt [1999] NSWCCA 29 Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal Australia - New South Wales 10 Mar 1999 AustLII flag 28
Penney v R [1998] HCA 51; (1998) 155 ALR 605; (1998) 72 ALJR 1316; (1998) 14 Leg Rep C11 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 13 Aug 1998 AustLII flag 73
(1998) 157 CLR 404 (1998) 157 CLR 404 Australia - Commonwealth circa 1998 Legal Online / Westlaw flag 1
Gipp v R (1998) 194 CLR 106 Australia - Commonwealth circa 1998 Legal Online / Westlaw flag 1
R v Lock (1997) 91 A Crim R 356 Australia circa 1997 Legal Online / Westlaw flag 106
R v Ah (1997) 42 NSWLR 702; (1997) 98 A Crim R 71 Australia - New South Wales circa 1997 LexisNexis AU flag 116
Pfennig v R [1995] HCA 7; (1995) 182 CLR 461; (1995) 127 ALR 99; (1995) 69 ALJR 147; 77 A Crim R 149 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 17 Feb 1995 AustLII flag 645
[1992] 2 VR 123 [1992] 2 VR 123 Australia - Victoria circa 1992 LexisNexis AU flag 1
Shepherd v R [1990] HCA 56; (1990) 170 CLR 573; 97 ALR 161; (1990) 65 ALJR 132; 51 A Crim R 181 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 19 Dec 1990 AustLII flag 831
Hoch v R [1988] HCA 50; (1988) 165 CLR 292; 81 ALR 225; (1988) 62 ALJR 582; 35 A Crim R 47 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 5 Oct 1988 AustLII flag 438
Sutton v R [1984] HCA 5; (1984) 152 CLR 528; 51 ALR 435; (1984) 58 ALJR 60; 11 A Crim R 331 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 14 Feb 1984 AustLII flag 314
Markby v R [1978] HCA 29; (1978) 140 CLR 108; 21 ALR 448; (1978) 52 ALJR 626 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 25 Jul 1978 AustLII flag 175
R v Boardman [1975] AC 421; [1974] 3 All ER 887; (1975) 60 Cr App R 165; [1974] 3 WLR 673; 60 CR A131 United Kingdom circa 1975 LexisNexis / Westlaw flag 340
Ha'I'ris v Direct()1' of Publ1'c Prosecutions [1952] AC 694; [1952] 1 All ER 10J4 United Kingdom circa 1952 LexisNexis / Westlaw flag 86
Martin v Osborne [1936] HCA 23; (1936) 55 CLR 367; [1936] ALR 261 High Court of Australia Australia - Commonwealth 5 Jun 1936 AustLII flag 391
Makin v Attorney-General for New South Wales [1894] AC 57; [1891-1894] All ER 24; 10 TLR 155; 69 LT 778 United Kingdom circa 1894 LexisNexis / Westlaw flag 1
"While it cannot be doubted that the quality or vividness of a recollection will generally be relevant in an assessment of its freshness, its contemporaneity or near contemporaneity, or otherwise, will almost always be the most important consideration in any assessment of its freshness The Court of Criminal Appeal took the view that the section laid emphasis on the `quality' of the memory and, in consequence, the regard that should have been paid to the delay in making the complaint was not paid There may be cases in which evidence of an event relatively remote in time will be admissible pursuant to s 66, but such cases will necessarily be rare and requiring of some special circumstance or feature It is desirable that s 66 be given such a construction not only for certainty but also to avoid as much as possible the delay and expense of voir dire hearings to explore questions of vividness and the like, with their attendant opportunities for the rehearsal of cross-examination and evidence " Australia LexisNexis AU flag 1
There are several reasons for adopting this construction First, the section applies only where the person who made the representation has been, or is to be, called to give evidence To permit leading of evidence of out of court statements made by that person based upon some assessment of the vividness or quality of the recollection (as opposed to its being made very soon after the events) would be to distract attention from the quality of the evidence that the witness gives in court Secondly, whatever a person may believe, and no matter how earnestly may try to be accurate, experience demonstrates that the memory of events does change as time passes Thirdly, the exception created by s 66 should be Ltd in its application to those cases where the tender of the earlier statement is likely to add to the useful material before the court If a witness claims to have a vivid recollection of events when called to give evidence, permitting the tender of some earlier statement made well after the events (but while they were, in the view of the witness or the court, still vivid) adds little useful to the material before the court By contrast, to permit the tender of a statement made at the time of (or very soon after) events in question may well be useful Such a statement may give the best available account of what the witness knows of the events " Australia LexisNexis AU flag 1
Section 101(2) requires R to establish that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs any prejudicial effect it may have on the accused The prejudicial effect of tendency evidence is that the ordinary person thinks that someone with an established tendency to conduct himself in a certain way whenever a particular opportunity arises will yield to that tendency and so conduct himself in the circumstances of the particular case: As such evidence is circumstantial in nature, R must establish that there is no reasonable view of the evidence available which is consistent with the innocence of the accused: That is what is required by s 101(2): " Australia - New South Wales LexisNexis AU flag 1

LawCite: Privacy | Disclaimers | Conditions of Use | Acknowledgements | Feedback