R v Abdallah (No. 5) [2014] NSWSC 233

R v Abdallah (No. 5) [2014] NSWSC 233

The photographs were not relevant because identification was not in issue, the accused admitted he was the gunman and was extensively tattooed, and the lay witnesses' vague evidence about tattoos was not capable of supporting their accounts or materially assisting assessment of any fact in issue. The tender of Exhibit VD2 was therefore rejected.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Prosecution Tender of Exhibit VD2 During Trial
Outcome
Tender rejected
Legal Topics
['admissibility of Photographic Evidence' 'relevance' 'credibility or Reliability of Witnesses' 'judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissibility of Photographic Evidence' 'relevance' 'credibility or Reliability of Witnesses' 'judicial Discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice']

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 Proceedings / Interlocutory Application Concerning Prosecution Tender of Exhibit VD2 During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether photographs of the accused's tattoos were relevant and admissible to support eyewitness accounts after challenges to witness observation and accuracy." 'Whether the tendered photographs offended the credibility rule in s 102 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether any probative value of the photographs was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The photographs were not relevant because identification was not in issue, the accused admitted he was the gunman and was extensively tattooed, and the lay witnesses' vague evidence about tattoos was not capable of supporting their accounts or materially assisting assessment of any fact in issue. The tender of Exhibit VD2 was therefore rejected.

Court Disposition

Tender rejected

Orders

  • ['The prosecution tender of Exhibit VD2 was rejected.']