Regina v Mikel Fajloun; Regina v Raad Fajloun [2007] NSWDC 380

Regina v Mikel Fajloun; Regina v Raad Fajloun [2007] NSWDC 380

Although the unexpected evidence was prejudicial and had no probative value, the occurrence was not very serious in the context of the contested issues because it arose in the general flow of evidence and came from the complainant whose credibility the defence challenged. It occurred relatively early, was not deliberately elicited, and could be addressed by broader contextual evidence directions warning the jury not to use other events as tendency evidence. There was therefore no necessary basis to discharge the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial / Application to Discharge Jury During Trial
Outcome
The application is rejected.
Legal Topics
['discharge of Jury' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence of Previous Violence' 'contextual Evidence' 'tendency Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['discharge of Jury' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence of Previous Violence' 'contextual Evidence' 'tendency 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 Trial / Application to Discharge Jury During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged after the complainant gave unexpected evidence in cross-examination that Mikel Fajloun had hit her and caused a bruise.' 'Whether any unfair prejudice from that evidence could be cured by directions to the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the unexpected evidence was prejudicial and had no probative value, the occurrence was not very serious in the context of the contested issues because it arose in the general flow of evidence and came from the complainant whose credibility the defence challenged. It occurred relatively early, was not deliberately elicited, and could be addressed by broader contextual evidence directions warning the jury not to use other events as tendency evidence. There was therefore no necessary basis to discharge the jury.

Court Disposition

The application is rejected.

Orders

  • ['The application to discharge the jury is rejected.']