R v Hawi & ors (No 30) [2011] NSWSC 1676

R v Hawi & ors (No 30) [2011] NSWSC 1676

The accused did not establish prejudice warranting discharge of the jury. Earlier cross-examination about the Deng footage was not shown to have been useful and may have risked eliciting evidence adverse to the accused. As to Ms Redford, the Crown had no apparent basis to positively assert to her that the man she saw had no tattoos, any cross-examination would at most have tested certainty, and it was not shown how the absence of such cross-examination prejudiced the defence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Procedure Juries Application to Discharge Jury / Application During Trial Following Refusal of Application to Exclude Video Evidence or Limit Its Use
Outcome
Application to discharge jury refused.
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'prejudice to Accused' 'late Notice of Evidence Relied Upon by Crown' 'browne V Dunn' 'cross Examination of Prosecution Witness' 'video Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Discharge' 'prejudice to Accused' 'late Notice of Evidence Relied Upon by Crown' 'browne V Dunn' 'cross Examination of Prosecution Witness' 'video 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 Law Procedure Juries Application to Discharge Jury / Application During Trial Following Refusal of Application to Exclude Video Evidence or Limit Its Use

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether late notification that the Crown would rely on aspects of the Deng footage created irreparable prejudice warranting discharge of the jury in respect of Mr Kisacanin.' "Whether the Crown's alleged failure to comply with the rule in Browne v Dunn by not seeking leave to cross-examine Ms Redford about tattoos created prejudice warranting discharge of the jury."]

Ratio Decidendi

The accused did not establish prejudice warranting discharge of the jury. Earlier cross-examination about the Deng footage was not shown to have been useful and may have risked eliciting evidence adverse to the accused. As to Ms Redford, the Crown had no apparent basis to positively assert to her that the man she saw had no tattoos, any cross-examination would at most have tested certainty, and it was not shown how the absence of such cross-examination prejudiced the defence.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge jury refused.

Orders

  • ['Application to discharge jury refused.']