R v Al Batat & Ors (No 18) [2020] NSWSC 1259

R v Al Batat & Ors (No 18) [2020] NSWSC 1259

Mr Luo's alleged statement was admissible against Mr Liu to prove the existence, nature and scope of the alleged joint criminal enterprise because it was made by a person sharing the alleged common purpose, during the attempt to carry out that purpose, and before the accused re-entered the premises. However, because the prosecution also alleged direct liability against Mr Liu as the shooter, admitting the statement without limitation could unfairly allow the jury to use an unchallengeable hearsay allegation to prove that Mr Liu fired the gun and acted with the required intention. The evidence was therefore admissible only for the limited joint criminal enterprise purpose and not to prove...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Murder and Related Offences / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Objection to Hearsay Evidence
Outcome
Evidence admissible against Mr Liu, with its use limited pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['hearsay Evidence' 'admissions' 'co Conspirators Rule' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'direct Criminal Liability' 'limitation of Evidence Under S 136' 'unfairness Under S 90']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay Evidence' 'admissions' 'co Conspirators Rule' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'direct Criminal Liability' 'limitation of Evidence Under S 136' 'unfairness Under S 90']

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 Prosecution for Murder and Related Offences / Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Objection to Hearsay Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Luo\'s statement to Mr Rivers that "Corey missed him, he shot the wrong guy" was admissible against Mr Liu under the co-conspirator\'s rule and s 87 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' "Whether the evidence could be used against Mr Liu to prove he discharged the firearm or had a particular intention in the prosecution's direct liability case." 'Whether the use of the evidence should be limited under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to avoid unfairness or misuse by the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Luo's alleged statement was admissible against Mr Liu to prove the existence, nature and scope of the alleged joint criminal enterprise because it was made by a person sharing the alleged common purpose, during the attempt to carry out that purpose, and before the accused re-entered the premises. However, because the prosecution also alleged direct liability against Mr Liu as the shooter, admitting the statement without limitation could unfairly allow the jury to use an unchallengeable hearsay allegation to prove that Mr Liu fired the gun and acted with the required intention. The evidence was therefore admissible only for the limited joint criminal enterprise purpose and not to prove...

Court Disposition

Evidence admissible against Mr Liu, with its use limited pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['The evidence can only be used against Mr Liu to establish the existence of the joint criminal enterprise alleged by the prosecution and the nature and scope of that enterprise.' 'The evidence cannot be used to establish that Mr Liu discharged the firearm or that he did so deliberately or with intention to shoot or...