 |
 |
|
Mr. Tansey submits that precisely the same situation applies here. Having considered the matter with
the greatest care, bearing in mind that the defendant was under no obligation to answer questions -
he was in his own home, it was a brief conversation, the conversation itself did not go directly to the
heart of the matter, as was the case in R. v. Bryce - I have come firmly to the conclusion, in the
exercise of my discretion, that this was a ruse in the public interest. It can be said that this is
prejudicial, but evidence that is capable of being probative is almost by definition also prejudicial to
a defendant. In my view, applying the reasoning in R. v. Christou and Wright, paying attention to the
decision particularly in R. v. Bryce I take the view that the (Inaudible) and I come to the conclusion,
clearly, that this evidence can properly be admitted and so I decide.
 |