R v J Lucas; R v B Lucas (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1810

R v J Lucas; R v B Lucas (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 1810

Joshua Lucas' posts were admissible against Benjamin Lucas for a non-hearsay purpose because they were not tendered to prove the truth of their contents but to show circumstantially Joshua Lucas' interest in the subject matter of the posts and whether he entered into the alleged agreement with Benjamin Lucas, an essential element of count 3. The conspiracy authorities concerning acts and declarations of one accused applied to any case where agreement is part of what must be proved against an accused, including joint commission.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Evidence of posts of Joshua Lucas is admissible against Benjamin Lucas.
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Online Chat Posts' 'hearsay' 'verbal Acts' 'joint Commission' 'agreement as an Element of Offence' 'terrorism Offence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Online Chat Posts' 'hearsay' 'verbal Acts' 'joint Commission' 'agreement as an Element of Offence' 'terrorism Offence']

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 Prosecution / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether posts made by Joshua Lucas were admissible against Benjamin Lucas as verbal acts in relation to the alleged agreement underlying count 3.' "Whether the use of Joshua Lucas' posts engaged the hearsay rule in s 59 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." 'Whether authorities concerning conspiracy apply where agreement is an element of joint commission under Commonwealth criminal law.']

Ratio Decidendi

Joshua Lucas' posts were admissible against Benjamin Lucas for a non-hearsay purpose because they were not tendered to prove the truth of their contents but to show circumstantially Joshua Lucas' interest in the subject matter of the posts and whether he entered into the alleged agreement with Benjamin Lucas, an essential element of count 3. The conspiracy authorities concerning acts and declarations of one accused applied to any case where agreement is part of what must be proved against an accused, including joint commission.

Court Disposition

Evidence of posts of Joshua Lucas is admissible against Benjamin Lucas.

Orders

  • ['The posts of Joshua Lucas are admissible against Benjamin Lucas, not to prove the truth of their contents, but to prove circumstantially that Joshua Lucas entered into the averred agreement with Benjamin Lucas.']