Citation: [2017] NSWSC 1330
Court: Supreme Court of NSW
Date: 28 September 2017
Judge(s): Rothman J
Background
This decision arose in the course of a criminal trial involving three accused, including Louise Spiteri-Ahern. The Crown sought to tender a series of medical records documenting injuries sustained by Ms Spiteri-Ahern.
Counsel for Ms Spiteri-Ahern objected to the volume of records tendered, arguing that a subset of three pages adequately covered the facts the Crown sought to establish, and that the additional records were therefore unnecessary or repetitious.
The question for the court was whether the broader set of medical records should be admitted into evidence, and if so, for what purposes the jury could use them.
Legal Issues
- Whether medical records documenting an accused's injuries were admissible under the Evidence Act 1995, where some records were said to be repetitious of others already tendered
- Whether, if admitted, the records could be used for the purposes of credit, or only for limited purposes such as establishing motive and the fact of injury
Decision
Issue 1: Admissibility of the medical records
Rothman J accepted that the three pages identified by defence counsel adequately summarised the relevant facts, but held that this did not render the remaining records inadmissible. The Crown retains the right to determine how it proves its case, including taking what his Honour described, in vernacular terms, as a "belt and braces approach" (at [2]).
The court applied the relevance test under section 55 of the Evidence Act 1995. All of the records were capable of rationally affecting the probability of a fact in issue, including the nature and extent of Ms Spiteri-Ahern's injuries such as neck injuries and related matters. On that basis, the documents were admitted (at [3]-[4]).
Issue 2: Permitted use of the admitted records
Having admitted the records, Rothman J imposed a limitation on their use. The material could be used only to establish motive and to prove the existence and nature of the injuries. It could not be used for credit purposes unless other evidence, itself admitted for that purpose, brought the credit issue into play (at [5]).
Orders Made
- Medical records relating to the accused tendered by the Crown admitted into evidence
- Use of those records limited to establishing motive and the nature of the injuries; records not to be used for credit purposes absent further express leave
Key Takeaways
- Under section 55 of the Evidence Act 1995, the test for relevance is whether evidence is "capable" of rationally affecting the probability of a fact in issue; the fact that other evidence already covers the same ground does not deprive additional documents of that capacity (at [4]).
- A party's entitlement to adopt a "belt and braces" approach to proof means that repetitious but relevant evidence will generally satisfy the admissibility threshold, even where a subset of documents would suffice (at [2]).
- Where medical records are admitted to establish injuries and motive, the court may expressly limit their use and exclude their deployment as evidence going to an accused's credit without further leave (at [5]).
- The Supreme Court treated the extent of an accused's physical injuries, including the range of conditions documented across multiple records, as capable of going to motive as a fact in issue in the proceedings (at [3]-[4]).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Evidence Act 1995, s 55
Cases
- Not stated