R v Batak (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 518

R v Batak (No 4) [2022] NSWSC 518

The Court was not affirmatively satisfied that the circumstances in which Mr Odisho gave the relevant evidence made it likely that the representations were reliable. The fact that the evidence was given on oath, even after legal advice, did not by itself make it likely to be reliable, and the surrounding circumstances included Mr Odisho's serious criminal sentence and his clear reluctance to answer questions. The Court also had misgivings about whether the representations were against Mr Odisho's interests in the relevant sense, because it could not determine whether he appreciated or was concerned about possible adverse consequences. Accordingly, the evidence was not admissible under s...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Trial Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Hearsay Representations Under S 65 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome
Evidence not admissible.
Legal Topics
['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay Exceptions' 'unavailable Witness' 'representations Against Interest' 'reliability of Prior Representations']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay' 'first Hand Hearsay Exceptions' 'unavailable Witness' 'representations Against Interest' 'reliability of Prior Representations']

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 Proceedings / Trial Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Hearsay Representations Under S 65 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether representations made by Sargon Odisho while giving evidence in this Court on 16 February 2022 and in the trial of R v Cengiz Coskun on 14 March 2022 were admissible under s 65(2)(d) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether the representations were against Mr Odisho's interests at the time they were made." 'Whether the representations were made in circumstances that made it likely they were reliable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not affirmatively satisfied that the circumstances in which Mr Odisho gave the relevant evidence made it likely that the representations were reliable. The fact that the evidence was given on oath, even after legal advice, did not by itself make it likely to be reliable, and the surrounding circumstances included Mr Odisho's serious criminal sentence and his clear reluctance to answer questions. The Court also had misgivings about whether the representations were against Mr Odisho's interests in the relevant sense, because it could not determine whether he appreciated or was concerned about possible adverse consequences. Accordingly, the evidence was not admissible under s...

Court Disposition

Evidence not admissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the representations made by Mr Sargon Odisho on 16 February 2022 is not admissible.']