R v Khayat (No 6) [2019] NSWSC 1318

R v Khayat (No 6) [2019] NSWSC 1318

The statement that Mahmoud Khayat had not spoken to Tarek for two years was literally true in the relevant circumstances because Telegram communications did not amount to simultaneous spoken conversations, so it could not be put as a lie evidencing guilt. The other three impugned statements were capable of being found by a rational jury to be lies about material matters, and the explanations advanced by the accused were matters for the jury under an Edwards direction rather than reasons to prevent the Crown from relying on them in closing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural Ruling on Whether the Crown Could Submit in Closing Address That Specified Statements Amounted to Lies Evidencing Consciousness of Guilt
Outcome
Rulings made permitting the Crown to rely on statements (b), (c) and (d), but not statement (a), as alleged lies evidencing consciousness of guilt in closing address.
Legal Topics
['lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'conspiracy to Do Acts in Preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'closing Address to Jury']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['lies as Consciousness of Guilt' 'conspiracy to Do Acts in Preparation for a Terrorist Act' 'closing Address to Jury']

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 / Procedural Ruling on Whether the Crown Could Submit in Closing Address That Specified Statements Amounted to Lies Evidencing Consciousness of Guilt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's statement that he had not spoken to Tarek at all for the past two years was capable of amounting to a lie from which guilt could be inferred." "Whether the accused's statements that he did not actually know whether Khaled Khayat was in contact with Tarek were capable of amounting to lies evidencing consciousness of guilt." "Whether the accused's statement that he did not know Khaled Khayat had bought the welder machine until the day they collected it was capable of amounting to a lie evidencing consciousness of guilt." "Whether the accused's statement that he was surprised about Amer and Khaled Khayat coming past Cleveland Street on 15 July 2017 was capable of amounting to a lie evidencing consciousness of guilt."]

Ratio Decidendi

The statement that Mahmoud Khayat had not spoken to Tarek for two years was literally true in the relevant circumstances because Telegram communications did not amount to simultaneous spoken conversations, so it could not be put as a lie evidencing guilt. The other three impugned statements were capable of being found by a rational jury to be lies about material matters, and the explanations advanced by the accused were matters for the jury under an Edwards direction rather than reasons to prevent the Crown from relying on them in closing.

Court Disposition

Rulings made permitting the Crown to rely on statements (b), (c) and (d), but not statement (a), as alleged lies evidencing consciousness of guilt in closing address.

Orders

  • ['Permit the Crown to submit in its closing address that statements (b), (c) and (d) amount to a consciousness of guilt.' 'Rule that the Crown is not permitted to submit in its closing address that statement (a) amounts to a consciousness of guilt.']