- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
(c) Skinner has been charged with armed robbery. During the Prosecution cross-examination, X, a defence witness called to provide an alibi for Skinner, the following exchange takes place:
Q. How long have you known Skinner?
A. About 5 years.
Q. Its really only about 6 months isn't it?
A. No, 5 years, we met at my sisters wedding and that was 5 years ago.
Q.Do you owe Skinner money?
A. Are you kidding, he never has any money.
Q. Very interesting. Now, have you ever owed Skinner money?
A. No, never.
Q. Do you know a man called Mr Smoker?
A. I could I suppose.
Q. Can I take it from that statement that you do know him?
A. Yeah, okay, I do.
Q. I put it to you that Mr Smoker introduced you to Skinner at the races 6 months ago.
A. No, I knew Skinner long before I met Smoker. Anyway I'm an animal lover and I hate the races.
Q. Do you recall meeting Smoker 2 weeks ago at the members bar at the racetrack?
A. I could have.
Q. Do you recall telling Smoker that you owed Skinner a large amout of money, about $10,000?
A. Damn! I'll kill Smoker for this.
Q. So you did tell him that you owed Skinner $10,000?
A.Yeah, I said it but it wasn't true - I was just kidding around and saying I owed Skinner money so I didn't have to buy hand any more drinks.
Q. Didn't you agree with Skinner that the debt would be wiped if you supplied him with an alibi?
A. You're dreaming - I haven't seen or spoken to Skinner in months.
At the close of the defence case the Crown prosecutor applied to call Smoker for him to testify that:
· X told him in the members bar at the races that he owed Skinner $10,000 and that he would be in "big strife" if he didn't pay up soon.
· Smoker and X discussed Skinner?s upcoming trial and X said, "Hey, maybe he needs an alibi!"
· X then made a call on his mobile phone. Smoker could only hear X?s side of the conversation. X said, "Hey Skinner, maaaate - I could do you a favour and cover for you the night of the robbery. All it will take is for you to write off the money I owe you." X was silent while the other person spoke. X then smiled and said, "You're a true gentleman - we'll both start off with a clean slate, eh?".
Assume that X giving false evidence in return for the debt being wiped is relevant to a main fact in issue - the issues of identity and opportunity Skinner may have had in the absence of X's alibi.
Has the rule against pursuing answers to collateral questions been infringed?
Why was it necessary for the Crown to seek leave to call X?
What factors will the trial judge consider in deciding whether to allow X to testify?
Not that i hold out any great hope
I think i have a rough idea, i only have to focus on the first question...
Q. How long have you known Skinner?
A. About 5 years.
Q. Its really only about 6 months isn't it?
A. No, 5 years, we met at my sisters wedding and that was 5 years ago.
Q.Do you owe Skinner money?
A. Are you kidding, he never has any money.
Q. Very interesting. Now, have you ever owed Skinner money?
A. No, never.
Q. Do you know a man called Mr Smoker?
A. I could I suppose.
Q. Can I take it from that statement that you do know him?
A. Yeah, okay, I do.
Q. I put it to you that Mr Smoker introduced you to Skinner at the races 6 months ago.
A. No, I knew Skinner long before I met Smoker. Anyway I'm an animal lover and I hate the races.
Q. Do you recall meeting Smoker 2 weeks ago at the members bar at the racetrack?
A. I could have.
Q. Do you recall telling Smoker that you owed Skinner a large amout of money, about $10,000?
A. Damn! I'll kill Smoker for this.
Q. So you did tell him that you owed Skinner $10,000?
A.Yeah, I said it but it wasn't true - I was just kidding around and saying I owed Skinner money so I didn't have to buy hand any more drinks.
Q. Didn't you agree with Skinner that the debt would be wiped if you supplied him with an alibi?
A. You're dreaming - I haven't seen or spoken to Skinner in months.
At the close of the defence case the Crown prosecutor applied to call Smoker for him to testify that:
· X told him in the members bar at the races that he owed Skinner $10,000 and that he would be in "big strife" if he didn't pay up soon.
· Smoker and X discussed Skinner?s upcoming trial and X said, "Hey, maybe he needs an alibi!"
· X then made a call on his mobile phone. Smoker could only hear X?s side of the conversation. X said, "Hey Skinner, maaaate - I could do you a favour and cover for you the night of the robbery. All it will take is for you to write off the money I owe you." X was silent while the other person spoke. X then smiled and said, "You're a true gentleman - we'll both start off with a clean slate, eh?".
Assume that X giving false evidence in return for the debt being wiped is relevant to a main fact in issue - the issues of identity and opportunity Skinner may have had in the absence of X's alibi.
Has the rule against pursuing answers to collateral questions been infringed?
Why was it necessary for the Crown to seek leave to call X?
What factors will the trial judge consider in deciding whether to allow X to testify?
Not that i hold out any great hope
I think i have a rough idea, i only have to focus on the first question...
Facebook
Twitter