R v Le 33

[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 Mohamed, Chaarani & Moukhaiber (Ruling 6)	[2019] VSC 169	Supreme Court of Victoria	Australia - Victoria	18 Mar 2019	AustLII
R v Bauer	[2018] HCA 40; (2018) 266 CLR 56; (2018) 359 ALR 359; (2018) 92 ALJR 846; 271 A Crim R 558; 92 LGRA 946	High Court of Australia	Australia - Commonwealth	12 Sep 2018	AustLII	368
A2 v R	[2018] NSWCCA 174	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	10 Aug 2018	AustLII	29
Lawson & Lawson	[2017] FamCA 42	Family Court of Australia	Australia	2 Feb 2017	AustLII
R v Droudis (No 11)	[2016] NSWSC 1319	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	14 Sep 2016	AustLII	1
Green v R	[2015] VSCA 279	Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal	Australia - Victoria	19 Oct 2015	AustLII	5
Leighton v R	[2015] NSWCCA 156	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	24 Jun 2015	AustLII
Pate v R	[2015] VSCA 110; (2015) 250 A Crim R 425	Supreme Court of Victoria - Court of Appeal	Australia - Victoria	20 May 2015	AustLII	16
R v Steele	[2015] NSWDC 100	District Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	12 Feb 2015	AustLII
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	12
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	21
R v Xie (No 4)	[2014] NSWSC 500	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	30 Apr 2014	AustLII	8
New South Wales v Vinh Le	[2013] NSWSC 348	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	16 Apr 2013	AustLII	1
R v Smith (No 5)	[2011] NSWSC 1459	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	28 Nov 2011	AustLII
BJS v R	[2011] NSWCCA 239	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	3 Nov 2011	AustLII	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	12
DMS Powders v Gondwana Chemicals Pty Ltd	[2010] NSWSC 994	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	3 Sep 2010	AustLII	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	1
R v Armstrong	[2010] NSWSC 801	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	27 Jul 2010	AustLII	1
R v Rg	[2006] NSWSC 15	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	30 Jan 2006	AustLII	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
Eld v R	[2005] NSWCCA 466	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	2 Dec 2005	AustLII
R v Pham	[2005] NSWCCA 9	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	4 Feb 2005	AustLII	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	136
R v Folbigg	[2003] NSWCCA 17	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	13 Feb 2003	AustLII	7
R v Andrews	[2003] NSWCCA 7	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	6 Feb 2003	AustLII	9
R v Lawrence Holt	[2001] NSWSC 232	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Australia - New South Wales	30 Mar 2001	AustLII	1
R v a	[2000] QCA 520	Supreme Court of Queensland - Court of Appeal	Australia - Queensland	19 Dec 2000	AustLII	11
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	49
R v DH	[2000] NSWCCA 360	Supreme Court of New South Wales - Court of Criminal Appeal	Australia - New South Wales	15 Sep 2000	AustLII	30
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	22

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

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

Legislation Cited

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

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	37
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	88
(1998) 157 CLR 404	(1998) 157 CLR 404		Australia - Commonwealth	circa 1998	Legal Online / Westlaw	1
Gipp v R	(1998) 194 CLR 106		Australia - Commonwealth	circa 1998	Legal Online / Westlaw	1
R v Lock	(1997) 91 A Crim R 356		Australia	circa 1997	Legal Online / Westlaw	121
R v Ah	(1997) 42 NSWLR 702; 98 A Crim R 71		Australia - New South Wales	circa 1997	LexisNexis AU	136
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	752
[1992] 2 VR 123	[1992] 2 VR 123		Australia - Victoria	circa 1992	LexisNexis AU	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	1157
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	478
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	354
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	190
R v Boardman	[1975] AC 421; [1974] 3 All ER 887; (1975) 60 Cr App R 165; [1974] 3 WLR 673		United Kingdom	circa 1975	LexisNexis / Westlaw	380
Harris v DPP	[1952] AC 694		United Kingdom	circa 1952	LexisNexis / Westlaw	86
Martin v Osborne	[1936] HCA 23; (1936) 55 CLR 367; [1936] ALR 261	High Court of Australia	Australia - Commonwealth	5 Jun 1936	AustLII	426
Makin v AG (NSW)	[1894] AC 57		United Kingdom	circa 1894	LexisNexis / Westlaw	337
"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	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	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	1

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