R v Azari (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 1585

R v Azari (No 10) [2018] NSWSC 1585

The application to discharge the jury was refused because the impugned evidence had been disclosed in Mr Hussain's statements and the amended Crown case statement, was relevant to the accused's state of mind during the 15 September 2014 call and to the meaning of his references to Kruezi's plan, was admissible for a non-tendency purpose, and had high probative value which was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Any risk that the jury might misuse the evidence could be addressed by directions, so there was no high degree of necessity to discharge the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Application to Discharge Jury / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial
Outcome
The accused's application to discharge the jury made on 18 October 2018 is refused.
Legal Topics
['application to Discharge Jury' 'relevance' 'tendency Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'acts in Preparation for or Planning a Terrorist Act']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'terrorism Offences'] ['application to Discharge Jury' 'relevance' 'tendency Evidence' 'unfair Prejudice' 'jury Directions' 'acts in Preparation for or Planning a Terrorist Act']

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 Proceeding; Application to Discharge Jury / Procedural Ruling During Jury Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence from Ahmed Hussain concerning Agim Kruezi and a firearm was within the notice given to the accused.' "Whether the impugned evidence was relevant to the accused's state of mind during the 15 September 2014 telephone call." 'Whether the evidence was admissible for a non-tendency purpose or was inadmissible tendency evidence in the absence of a tendency notice.' 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.' 'Whether any risk of unfair prejudice required discharge of the jury or could be cured by appropriate jury directions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to discharge the jury was refused because the impugned evidence had been disclosed in Mr Hussain's statements and the amended Crown case statement, was relevant to the accused's state of mind during the 15 September 2014 call and to the meaning of his references to Kruezi's plan, was admissible for a non-tendency purpose, and had high probative value which was not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice. Any risk that the jury might misuse the evidence could be addressed by directions, so there was no high degree of necessity to discharge the jury.

Court Disposition

The accused's application to discharge the jury made on 18 October 2018 is refused.

Orders

  • ["The accused's application to discharge the jury made on 18 October 2018 is refused."]