The Queen v Twentyman

[2021] NTSC 48

Supreme Court of the Northern Territory

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Evidence
2. › Admissibility and relevance
3. › Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) ss 55, 137
4. › Complainant’s police interview
5. › Statement that accused ‘bashed’ his girlfriend
6. › Whether relevant
7. › Whether use of evidence at trial unfair
8. › Whether evidence has significant probative value
9. › Whether probative value of the evidence substantially outweighs any potential prejudicial effect on the accused
10. › Evidence admissible.
1. CA v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 324; Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [name withheld] v The Queen; [name withheld] v The Queen; OAE v The Queen [2008] HCA 16; (2008) 235 CLR 334; KTR v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 271; Roach v The Queen [2011] HCA 12; (2011) 242 CLR 610; The Queen v AW [2018] NTSC 29; The Queen v Grant (2016) 262 A Crim R 348, referred to.
1. Criminal Code 1983 (NT) ss 127(1), 132(2)(a).
1. Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) ss 55, 137.

Citation[2021] NTSC 48

CourtNTSC

JurisdictionNorthern Territory

The full text is available to signed-in members.

Already have an account? Sign in