Print document
 20 of 94 
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.