RELEVANCE (topic one)
R v BUCHANAN
Facts: A was convicted with manslaughter, killing someone while driving. At the trial, a witness gave evidence that A had been drinking all day and that 30 mins before the incident, the A had been driving negligently. Was this relevant?
Held: of high relevance, as the consumption of alcohol so close to the incident made it more likely that the A did in fact commit the crime.
R v HORATH
Facts: A charged with culpable driving causing death. Witness saw the guy overtaking around bends and speeding 45 mins earlier and 50 kms away. Was this evidence relevant?
Held: no, for it to be relevant, there must’ve been a connecting link between what the witness saw and the state of the A at the time of the incident (re: Buchanan’s case, where alcohol linked the prior behaviour to the incident)
R v STEPHENSON
Facts: a fiat with four people in it make a turn at an intersection, where the A drove through and collided with the fiat, killing three of the occupants. It was never determined who was driving. D wanted to ask a medical witness if any of the people in the car had alcohol in their blood at time of accident. A was convicted and appealed.
Held: even if alcohol was present in the blood of the guys, it was never determined who was driving and therefore any medical evidence would be irrelevant.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
WILSON v R
Facts: A was charged with the murder of his wife, who died from a gunshot blast to the head. A argued that the shotgun had discharged accidentally – maybe the dog stood on the trigger. P lead evidence that showed that the two had two arguments, where the deceased said “I know you want to kill me for my money”, which was evidence as to motive. Was this evidence relevant?
Held: Barwick CJ noted that transient quarrels should not be admitted since it does not support motive. However, consistent quarrels such as in the current case may go to motive.
Facts: A was convicted with manslaughter, killing someone while driving. At the trial, a witness gave evidence that A had been drinking all day and that 30 mins before the incident, the A had been driving negligently. Was this relevant?
Held: of high relevance, as the consumption of alcohol so close to the incident made it more likely that the A did in fact commit the crime.
R v HORATH
Facts: A charged with culpable driving causing death. Witness saw the guy overtaking around bends and speeding 45 mins earlier and 50 kms away. Was this evidence relevant?
Held: no, for it to be relevant, there must’ve been a connecting link between what the witness saw and the state of the A at the time of the incident (re: Buchanan’s case, where alcohol linked the prior behaviour to the incident)
R v STEPHENSON
Facts: a fiat with four people in it make a turn at an intersection, where the A drove through and collided with the fiat, killing three of the occupants. It was never determined who was driving. D wanted to ask a medical witness if any of the people in the car had alcohol in their blood at time of accident. A was convicted and appealed.
Held: even if alcohol was present in the blood of the guys, it was never determined who was driving and therefore any medical evidence would be irrelevant.
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
WILSON v R
Facts: A was charged with the murder of his wife, who died from a gunshot blast to the head. A argued that the shotgun had discharged accidentally – maybe the dog stood on the trigger. P lead evidence that showed that the two had two arguments, where the deceased said “I know you want to kill me for my money”, which was evidence as to motive. Was this evidence relevant?
Held: Barwick CJ noted that transient quarrels should not be admitted since it does not support motive. However, consistent quarrels such as in the current case may go to motive.
posted by LOki @ 3:51 PM
2 Comments:
At 10:01 AM,
ToFu said…
Carlil v The Carbolic Smokeball Co.
The issue is whether there was an offer of acceptance made to anyone.
The carbolic smokeball stated 'anyone who contracted influenza while using the smoke balls as perscribed will inhereit 100p'.
Indeed, Carlil did and when the smokeball claimed it was a marketing plot Carlil sued and successfully won on the grounds that there was a contract binding between the two parties. The judges said something like the smokeball company was serious in their intent because they have put away 1000p in a trust.
For all those who do not know, this is where Monin's personal blog is named after. Wow i can't beleive i still remember that case!
then there's Sydney Parking v R and that dumb bitch who ate a snail.
Non-law student signing out.
Shout out to all the commerce students in Monash Clayton!!!!
-Jay (Jedi Master and konoha Juunin)
At 9:16 AM,
ToFu said…
PostNexus to outgoing or loss to produce assessable income:
Sec 8-1(1) You can deduct from your assessable income any loss or outgoing to the extent that:
(a) It is incurred in gaining or producing you assessable income
Charles Moore & Co Pty Ltd v FC of T: Was allowed a deduction when the taxpayers employee was robbed while delivering its daily takings to the bank. The High Court held this activity was ordinary in the course of business as the placement of goods on its shelves.
Post a Comment
<< Home