R v Al Batat & Ors (No 31) [2020] NSWSC 1556

R v Al Batat & Ors (No 31) [2020] NSWSC 1556

Mr Luo's alleged statements about the stolen Ice, the contract on Jun Jia's life and his acceptance of that contract were admissions admissible against Mr Luo but inadmissible hearsay against the other accused because no common purpose was alleged at the time of the conversation and s 87(1)(c) did not apply. However, his alleged answer of words to the effect of 'yes' to 'Are you going to do it?' was a contemporaneous representation of intention admissible against all accused under s 66A and capable of supporting the prosecution case circumstantially as to a later joint criminal enterprise. It was therefore appropriate to make an order under s 136 limiting the use of the evidence against...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Application Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Limit Use of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Application granted.
Legal Topics
['hearsay Evidence' 'admissions' 'co Accused Evidence' 'contemporaneous Representation of Intention' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'limitation of Use of Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['hearsay Evidence' 'admissions' 'co Accused Evidence' 'contemporaneous Representation of Intention' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'limitation of Use of Evidence']

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 / Application Under S 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) to Limit Use of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Leonard Rivers' evidence of a conversation with Mr Luo about a contract to murder someone could be used against accused other than Mr Luo." "Whether s 87(1)(c) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) applied to make Mr Luo's alleged out-of-court statements admissible against the other accused." "Whether Mr Luo's alleged answer that he was going to do it was admissible against all accused under s 66A as a contemporaneous representation of intention." 'Whether an order should be made under s 136 limiting the use of the evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Luo's alleged statements about the stolen Ice, the contract on Jun Jia's life and his acceptance of that contract were admissions admissible against Mr Luo but inadmissible hearsay against the other accused because no common purpose was alleged at the time of the conversation and s 87(1)(c) did not apply. However, his alleged answer of words to the effect of 'yes' to 'Are you going to do it?' was a contemporaneous representation of intention admissible against all accused under s 66A and capable of supporting the prosecution case circumstantially as to a later joint criminal enterprise. It was therefore appropriate to make an order under s 136 limiting the use of the evidence against...

Court Disposition

Application granted.

Orders

  • ["The application to limit the use of Leonard Rivers' evidence of a conversation with Ying Cheng Luo on 11 or 12 January 2017 pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is granted." 'An order is made under s 136 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) limiting the use of the evidence in that way.' 'The jury will be...