Defence application by accused to exclude certain utterances he allegedly made to an undercover police officer in relation to a weapon successful & evidence ruled inadmissible.
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
And
[REDACTED], [REDACTED] and [REDACTED]
Applicant
Released: [REDACTED]
Counsel: [REDACTED], for Crown.
[REDACTED], for Mr. [REDACTED].
[REDACTED], for [REDACTED].
[REDACTED], for [REDACTED].
Judge: [REDACTED]
Ruling
The three accused, were charged with drug trafficking related offences. There was a motion by one of the accused, Mr. [REDACTED], to exclude certain utterances he allegedly made to an undercover police officer in relation to his alleged interest in obtaining a weapon. The Court accepted the accused's arguments and excluded the utterances made in relation to the weapon, stating that the probative value of the utterances were so marginal and so outweighed by the prejudicial effect it could have on the jury that it rendered the evidence inadmissible.
