R v Dillon [2019] NSWSC 1533

R v Dillon [2019] NSWSC 1533

Although the witness was an important accusatory witness and remote evidence involved some unfairness by limiting face-to-face confrontation, the Crown established on the balance of probabilities that the interests of the administration of justice required the direction. The history of serious related events, the witness's alleged intimidation of JTR, the physical constraints of the courtroom, and the need to enhance the security of the accused, counsel, solicitors, court staff, court reporters and the public justified the witness giving evidence remotely.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedure Ruling Concerning Evidence by Audio Visual Link in a Murder Trial / Voir Dire/application During Trial
Outcome
Application granted; direction made that Abdul Abu-Mahmoud may give evidence by audio visual link.
Legal Topics
['evidence by Audio Visual Link' 'fair Trial' 'confrontation of Witness' 'administration of Justice' 'court Security']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['evidence by Audio Visual Link' 'fair Trial' 'confrontation of Witness' 'administration of Justice' 'court Security']

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 Procedure Ruling Concerning Evidence by Audio Visual Link in a Murder Trial / Voir Dire/application During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should direct under s 5B of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1988 (NSW) that Abdul Majid Abu-Mahmoud give evidence by audio visual link from a remote location.' 'Whether receiving evidence from an accusatory and potentially crucial Crown witness by audio visual link would cause unfairness to the accused.' 'Whether the interests of the administration of justice, including the safety and security of participants in the trial process, justified the direction.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the witness was an important accusatory witness and remote evidence involved some unfairness by limiting face-to-face confrontation, the Crown established on the balance of probabilities that the interests of the administration of justice required the direction. The history of serious related events, the witness's alleged intimidation of JTR, the physical constraints of the courtroom, and the need to enhance the security of the accused, counsel, solicitors, court staff, court reporters and the public justified the witness giving evidence remotely.

Court Disposition

Application granted; direction made that Abdul Abu-Mahmoud may give evidence by audio visual link.

Orders

  • ['Direct that Abdul Abu-Mahmoud may give evidence via AVL']