R v Hawi & ors (No 26) [2011] NSWSC 1672

R v Hawi & ors (No 26) [2011] NSWSC 1672

It was open to the jury to conclude that Mr Padovan left the terminal about 2 minutes and 45 seconds after the fighting ceased because of a consciousness of guilt. The existence of submissions and possible alternative explanations did not prevent the Crown from relying on the evidence, and no particular prejudice arose. The Crown was therefore permitted to put the consciousness of guilt argument, subject to usual directions about competing explanations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Accused's Objection to Crown Reliance on Flight as Consciousness of Guilt
Outcome
The Crown may rely upon flight as consciousness of guilt in relation to the accused Padovan.
Legal Topics
['flight From Scene' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'judicial Discretion to Limit Use of Evidence' 'jury Directions']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['flight From Scene' 'consciousness of Guilt' 'judicial Discretion to Limit Use of Evidence' 'jury Directions']

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 Proceeding / Procedural Ruling on Accused's Objection to Crown Reliance on Flight as Consciousness of Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown could rely on Mr Padovan leaving the terminal as flight evincing consciousness of guilt.' 'Whether reliance on the evidence would cause particular prejudice to Mr Padovan.' 'Whether alternative explanations for Mr Padovan leaving the terminal precluded the Crown from putting a consciousness of guilt argument to the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

It was open to the jury to conclude that Mr Padovan left the terminal about 2 minutes and 45 seconds after the fighting ceased because of a consciousness of guilt. The existence of submissions and possible alternative explanations did not prevent the Crown from relying on the evidence, and no particular prejudice arose. The Crown was therefore permitted to put the consciousness of guilt argument, subject to usual directions about competing explanations.

Court Disposition

The Crown may rely upon flight as consciousness of guilt in relation to the accused Padovan.

Orders

  • ['The Crown may rely upon flight as consciousness of guilt in relation to the accused Padovan.']