Do police have to serve you any additional evidence they intend to use in cross examination if it was not served in the initial brief of evidence?
NSW Additional materials used in cross examination
- Thread starter Hellomyonlyfriend
- Start date
Yes, but do not always do so.
Sooo - you ask for an adjournment, possibly having the matter part heard, while you review the new evidence. If you have a lawyer get them to ask for costs of the day.
Sooo - you ask for an adjournment, possibly having the matter part heard, while you review the new evidence. If you have a lawyer get them to ask for costs of the day.
The magistrate just let them introduce it yesterday during my cross examination.
I said to him "How could they introduce this when not in brief?"
He said they did not need to.
It was a full on hijack, although I handled it well.
Matter already been adjourned 10 times. Self represented.
Is that grounds for exclusion?
I did not think it was appropriate. How many days are they usually required to give?
I don't know the facts so can't comment on whether the evidence can be excluded.
How many days depends on whether the additional evidence requires you to gather additional material. Anywhere from a refusal to grant extra time to months.
How many days depends on whether the additional evidence requires you to gather additional material. Anywhere from a refusal to grant extra time to months.
The prosecutor was allowed to google the internet and everything to ask my questions in cross examination about search results etc.
Without any notice at all.
How is that allowed?
Without any notice at all.
How is that allowed?
Sounds like the general nature of cross examinations. They can ask any question as long as it is relevant, and if there is an objection then court needs to agree.
Some material can be handed up on the day, often depending on what the examination reveals.
Some material can be handed up on the day, often depending on what the examination reveals.
Later material, not previously tendered,
can become relevant when it is used to rebut evidence given by a witness,
which is later shown, in cross, to be, at least, not wholly true, and at worst, an out and out lie.
In short and simple...
If you say something in evidence (eg: "I was not there"), then
the other side can put on evidence to show the opposite.
They are not always and automatically required to disclose that in advance.
can become relevant when it is used to rebut evidence given by a witness,
which is later shown, in cross, to be, at least, not wholly true, and at worst, an out and out lie.
In short and simple...
If you say something in evidence (eg: "I was not there"), then
the other side can put on evidence to show the opposite.
They are not always and automatically required to disclose that in advance.
Similar threads