R v Qaumi & Ors (No 42) [2016] NSWSC 887

R v Qaumi & Ors (No 42) [2016] NSWSC 887

The proposed question was not relevant because the witness's belief about who he was doing the shooting for did not rationally affect the issues in Mr Kalal's case and did not establish that Mr Kalal held the same belief. If the evidence had any peripheral relevance, its probative value was slight and it would be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because of the significant danger of unfair prejudice to Farhad Qaumi.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Cross Examination During Trial
Outcome
The question is disallowed.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination of Roll Over Witness' 'relevance' 'duress' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination of Roll Over Witness' 'relevance' 'duress' 'unfair Prejudice' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Objection to Cross Examination During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a co-accused should be permitted to ask a roll-over witness, "In your mind, who were you doing the shooting for?"' "Whether the witness's belief as to the person on whose behalf he was acting was relevant to Mr Kalal's case, including any defence of duress" 'Whether, if relevant, the evidence should be excluded because of unfair prejudice to Farhad Qaumi']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed question was not relevant because the witness's belief about who he was doing the shooting for did not rationally affect the issues in Mr Kalal's case and did not establish that Mr Kalal held the same belief. If the evidence had any peripheral relevance, its probative value was slight and it would be excluded under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because of the significant danger of unfair prejudice to Farhad Qaumi.

Court Disposition

The question is disallowed.

Orders

  • ['The question is disallowed.']