R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema (No 7) [2024] NSWSC 453

R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema (No 7) [2024] NSWSC 453

Items 260, 263 and 293 were technically admissible against all accused on a limited original circumstantial evidence basis, but the relevant communications after the stabbing were not acts or declarations in furtherance of the agreement and could not be used for their truth against non-participant accused. Because their probative value against those non-participant accused was limited and substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion, and for item 263 also unfair prejudice, s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required limiting admissibility. Rizk was included because she chose to rely upon all the evidence in the trial.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Admissibility of Items 260, 263 and 293 of Exhibit C
Outcome
Items 260, 263 and 293 of Exhibit C were admitted only against specified accused.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Evidence' 'intercepted Messages and Phone Calls' 'co Accused Statements' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'admissions' 'hearsay Exception' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 87']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Evidence' 'intercepted Messages and Phone Calls' 'co Accused Statements' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'admissions' 'hearsay Exception' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 135' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 87']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility Ruling / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Admissibility of Items 260, 263 and 293 of Exhibit C

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether items 260, 263 and 293 of Exhibit C were admissible against each accused.' 'Whether statements by a co-accused or co-offender in the absence of an accused were admissible as original circumstantial evidence or as acts or declarations in furtherance of an agreement.' 'Whether the probative value of the evidence against non-participant accused was substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be confusing or unfairly prejudicial under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Items 260, 263 and 293 were technically admissible against all accused on a limited original circumstantial evidence basis, but the relevant communications after the stabbing were not acts or declarations in furtherance of the agreement and could not be used for their truth against non-participant accused. Because their probative value against those non-participant accused was limited and substantially outweighed by the danger of confusion, and for item 263 also unfair prejudice, s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required limiting admissibility. Rizk was included because she chose to rely upon all the evidence in the trial.

Court Disposition

Items 260, 263 and 293 of Exhibit C were admitted only against specified accused.

Orders

  • ['Item 260 of Exhibit C is only admissible against the accused Rizk and the accused Rahim.' 'Item 263 of Exhibit C is only admissible against the accused Rizk and the accused Price.' 'Item 293 of Exhibit C is only admissible against the accused Rizk and the accused Rahim.']