Citation: R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 758
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 15 June 2022
Judge(s): Harrison J
Background
The accused stood trial for murder. During the trial, a witness was called to give evidence about a conversation in which the accused allegedly approached him on a plane and asked whether he knew anyone who could kill his wife.
The Crown's case theory was that the accused had sought out this particular witness precisely because the accused was aware of the witness's connections to criminal identities. The witness's statement disclosed that he had previously associated with known criminals.
Counsel for the accused objected to a question put to the witness asking whether he knew the identity of a particular person's brother-in-law. The objection was based on relevance: the Crown had not yet established, by direct evidence, that the accused knew anything about the witness's criminal associations.
Legal Issues
- Whether a question is admissible where its relevance to a fact in issue has not yet been directly established at the time it is asked
- Whether the Crown's anticipated inference, that the accused knew of the witness's criminal connections because those connections were notorious, was sufficient to render the question admissible
Decision
Harrison J acknowledged that the direct relevance of the question had not yet been established at the point the objection was raised. The Crown conceded it could not prove by direct evidence that the accused was aware of the witness's criminal connections. Instead, the Crown intended to rely on an inference arising from the notorious nature of those associations.
The judge rejected the submission that the question was inadmissible simply because its relevance remained unproven at that moment. The preferable approach, in his Honour's view, was to treat the question as potentially admissible provided the Crown could later establish the supporting inference through other evidence led in the proceedings.
Harrison J held that the prospect of the Crown establishing relevance was not far-fetched, remote, or fanciful. On that basis, the question was allowed. His Honour expressly noted that whether the alleged facts, if proved, would ultimately give rise to the inference the Crown contended for remained to be determined.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- A question need not be immediately supported by established relevance to be admissible at the time it is asked, provided the court is satisfied that the prospect of relevance being established later is not far-fetched, remote, or fanciful.
- The Supreme Court applied a practical, sequential approach to relevance: a question may be treated as conditionally admissible where its relevance depends on other evidence yet to be led.
- Relevance in criminal trials can arise by inference rather than direct evidence, but whether a particular inference will ultimately be sustained remains a separate question to be resolved as the evidence develops.
- Where the Crown cannot directly prove a fact, it may still lay the groundwork through evidence of circumstances from which the fact may be inferred, subject to the court later assessing whether the inference is supportable.
- The ruling was confined to the narrow procedural question of admissibility at that stage of the trial; it carried no finding on whether the accused actually knew of the witness's criminal connections.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
No legislation or cases were cited in the judgment text or metadata.