Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 47] [2008] NSWSC 1466

Regina (C'Wealth) v Baladjam & Ors [No 47] [2008] NSWSC 1466

The statement was capable of being an admission, but the Crown proved on the balance of probabilities that it and its making were not influenced by oppressive conduct or any other conduct described in s 84. The police conduct during the search, viewed individually and cumulatively, was not oppressive; Jamal's anger arose from resentment at a lawful search warrant, and the statement was calm, deliberate and made in the exercise of his free will.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application by Jamal to Exclude Evidence at Trial Under S 84 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome
Application refused; the statement was not excluded.
Legal Topics
['application to Exclude Admission' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 84' 'admissions Influenced by Oppressive Conduct' 'execution of Search Warrant' 'meaning of Oppressive Conduct']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['application to Exclude Admission' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 84' 'admissions Influenced by Oppressive Conduct' 'execution of Search Warrant' 'meaning of Oppressive Conduct']

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 / Application by Jamal to Exclude Evidence at Trial Under S 84 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the statement made by Mohammed Omar Jamal in the early hours of 8 November 2005 was an admission to which s 84 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) could apply.' 'Whether the Crown proved that the admission and the making of the admission were not influenced by violent, oppressive, inhuman or degrading conduct, or a threat of such conduct.' 'Whether matters including handcuffing, the presence of a crowbar, searches of family members, alleged non-compliance with warrant procedures, videotaping, denial of presence during the search, and police comments amounted to oppressive conduct influencing the statement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statement was capable of being an admission, but the Crown proved on the balance of probabilities that it and its making were not influenced by oppressive conduct or any other conduct described in s 84. The police conduct during the search, viewed individually and cumulatively, was not oppressive; Jamal's anger arose from resentment at a lawful search warrant, and the statement was calm, deliberate and made in the exercise of his free will.

Court Disposition

Application refused; the statement was not excluded.

Orders

  • ['I decline to order the exclusion of the statement made by the accused.' 'The application that the statement be held to be inadmissible is refused.']