R v Abdollahi (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 479

R v Abdollahi (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 479

Ms Bishop's evidence could rationally affect the assessment of facts in issue, including whether particular accused participated in conduct forming part of the alleged riot or affray. The asserted contamination from nominal roll notations by other staff was not shown to be of real concern, the delays and omissions were matters for the jury to evaluate, effective cross-examination was not shown to be impeded, and any risk of unfair prejudice could be addressed by appropriate directions. The probative value of the challenged evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Concerning Charges of Riot and Affray / Procedural and Other Ruling on Objections to Admissibility of Crown Evidence
Outcome
Evidence admissible
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Identification Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'potential Contamination of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137' 'riot and Affray']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Identification Evidence' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'potential Contamination of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 137' 'riot and Affray']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Trial Concerning Charges of Riot and Affray / Procedural and Other Ruling on Objections to Admissibility of Crown Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether aspects of Ms Susan Bishop's evidence identifying accused detainees in relation to events at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether alleged contamination from notations on a nominal roll by other Serco staff deprived the evidence of probative value or created a danger of unfair prejudice.' 'Whether delay, omissions from earlier statements, and inability to recall specific prior dealings with accused persons affected admissibility rather than weight.']

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Bishop's evidence could rationally affect the assessment of facts in issue, including whether particular accused participated in conduct forming part of the alleged riot or affray. The asserted contamination from nominal roll notations by other staff was not shown to be of real concern, the delays and omissions were matters for the jury to evaluate, effective cross-examination was not shown to be impeded, and any risk of unfair prejudice could be addressed by appropriate directions. The probative value of the challenged evidence was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Court Disposition

Evidence admissible

Orders

  • ['The evidence of Ms Bishop concerning Seyed Ali Reza Kamali is admissible.' 'The evidence of Ms Bishop concerning Amir Manafi Bejoushin is admissible.' 'The evidence of Ms Bishop concerning Medhi Viasi is admissible.' 'The evidence of Ms Bishop concerning Kamelledin Shahsawari is admissible.']