//
[2025] NSWSC 708
General information, not legal advice.
Supreme Court of NSW
2025-05-27
Campbell J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Zoe will write a short plain-English summary of this judgment and email it to you for free: what it was about, what the court decided and why. It can take up to a minute.
General information, not legal advice.
Or create a free account to save it and ask Zoe follow-up questions.
Source: NSW Caselaw (www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Cairney (No 10) [2025] NSWSC 708
Hearing dates: 11 April 2025, 19, 21-23, 26-27 May 2025
Date of orders: 27 May 2025
Decision date: 27 May 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Campbell J
Decision: The ISRAPS evidence and images are relevant and admitted as evidence.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – procedure – admissibility of ISRAPS evidence of crime scene and blood staining – where blood stain experts will give evidence – where a proper direction can be given to the jury
Cases Cited: R v Cairney (No 9) [2025] NSWSC 707
Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Paul John Cairney (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
K Ratcliffe with S Allan (Solicitor Advocate)
(C Taylor with S Allan appearing on and after 23 June 2025 and Mr Allan appeared alone on 27 June 2025) (Crown)
S Climo (C Feiner appearing on and after 24 June 2025) (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitors for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s): 2022/381365
Publication restriction: Nil.
I am required to rule on the admissibility of the Interactive Scene Recording and Presentation System (ISRAPS) recording.
I am of the view that the ISRAPS is relevant.
I note that the contested images concerning the white utility vehicle parked on Turner Esplanade are not the same, but in the same vein, as photograph 41 of the crime scene photographs (the subject of my earlier ex tempore judgment in R v Cairney (No 9) [2025] NSWSC 707) and can be included in the tender of the ISRAPS.
So far as there is a concern that, because of the interactive nature of the ISRAPS, the jury may focus on different aspects of it when they have access to the exhibit in the jury room, there are two considerations ameliorating that. The first being that I would certainly give leave to either party to ask the bloodstain pattern expert, or experts, about the significance or lack of significance of the blood staining on the side panel of the utility vehicle and how it acquired the appearance that is depicted in the photographs. Secondly, I think the natural concern about the effect of blood stain images upon the minds of the jury can effectively be dealt with by way of a suitable direction.
I rule that the ISRAPS, including these images, are admissible.
**********
R
Cairney