R v Hawi & ors (No 16) [2011] NSWSC 1662

R v Hawi & ors (No 16) [2011] NSWSC 1662

The statement made in the intercepted conversation could not substantially affect the assessment of Mr Abounader's credibility in regard to his post-arrest statements, and may be misleading if admitted out of context; accordingly, the evidence is not admissible.

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Mahmoud Hawi; Accused: Christian Adam Menzies; Accused: Farres Abounader; Accused: Ishmail Eken; Accused: Usama Potrus; Accused: Zoran Kisacanin; Accused: David Padovan
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural and Other Rulings
Outcome
Evidence not admissible
Legal Topics
Evidence, Credibility, Admissibility of Statements, Prior Exculpatory Statements
Criminal Law Evidence Credibility Admissibility of Statements Prior Exculpatory Statements

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Mahmoud Hawi

Accused

Christian Adam Menzies

Accused

Farres Abounader

Accused

Ishmail Eken

Accused

Usama Potrus

Accused

Zoran Kisacanin

Accused

David Padovan

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural and Other Rulings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of a prior exculpatory statement made by an accused during an intercepted telephone conversation is admissible as credibility evidence under s 108A of the Evidence Act 1995

Ratio Decidendi

The statement made in the intercepted conversation could not substantially affect the assessment of Mr Abounader's credibility in regard to his post-arrest statements, and may be misleading if admitted out of context; accordingly, the evidence is not admissible.

Court Disposition

Evidence not admissible

Orders

  • The evidence of the intercepted conversation as credibility evidence is not admitted.