R v Hogan [2001] NSWCCA 292

Facts: Hogan (Defendant; D) was convicted of inflicting GBH. D appealed on a number of grounds, including the Prosecution’s (Pr) cross-examination (CE) of a witness (W) who was contradictory in evidence-in-chief (EIC) vs. earlier police statements. The CE covered material (whether the W had seen D sleeping with another and her drug taking etc) that was entirely collateral to the facts-in-issue and far from the ambit of s 38 Evidence Act that had the effect of diverting the focus of the trial.

Want to read more?

Subscribe to casetreasury.com to keep reading this exclusive post.

Subscribe Now