R v Al Batat & Ors (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 1086

R v Al Batat & Ors (No 7) [2020] NSWSC 1086

Although the evidence was accepted as relevant and as falling within the hearsay exception for admissions against Mr Fan's interest, its probative value in proving a fact in issue was slight because the conversations occurred weeks or possibly months after the shooting and could only prove Mr Fan's knowledge at the time of the representations. That probative value was outweighed by the danger that the jury would misuse the evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted or give it more weight than it deserved, so s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required exclusion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Pre Trial Hearing; Evidentiary Objection to Alleged Admissions
Outcome
Evidence excluded; objection upheld.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'admissions' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'exclusion of Prosecution Evidence Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'admissions' 'relevance' 'unfair Prejudice' 'exclusion of Prosecution Evidence Under S 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']

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 / Pre Trial Hearing; Evidentiary Objection to Alleged Admissions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence in paragraphs [59] and [61] of Xiao Lei Yang's statement dated 30 August 2018 was relevant." 'Whether the statements attributed to Mr Fan were hearsay or admissible as admissions.' "Whether the statements could be used to prove only Mr Fan's state of knowledge at the time of the conversations rather than the truth of the matters stated." 'Whether the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to Mr Fan.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the evidence was accepted as relevant and as falling within the hearsay exception for admissions against Mr Fan's interest, its probative value in proving a fact in issue was slight because the conversations occurred weeks or possibly months after the shooting and could only prove Mr Fan's knowledge at the time of the representations. That probative value was outweighed by the danger that the jury would misuse the evidence to prove the truth of the matters asserted or give it more weight than it deserved, so s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) required exclusion.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded; objection upheld.

Orders

  • ['The evidence in paragraphs [59] and [61] of the statement of Xiao Lei Yang dated 30 August 2018 is inadmissible.']