R v Chalabian (No. 9) [2022] NSWSC 305

R v Chalabian (No. 9) [2022] NSWSC 305

The concrete proposed questions could be asked because, if made clear to the witness and jury, they were confined to whether particular phrases or words were used by Mr Hausman to the Accused and were not unfair to the Crown or misleading or confusing. The omnibus question asking whether Mr Hausman never told the Accused anything like that during face-to-face dealings was disallowed because it was not a concrete phrase or proposition, required consideration of various meetings and surrounding communications, and would contravene s.135 Evidence Act 1995 by being unfair to the Crown as well as misleading or confusing.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Jury Trial on a Charge of Money Laundering Under S.400.3(1) Criminal Code (cth) / Procedural Ruling on Crown Objection to Questions in Cross Examination of Crown Witness Daniel Hausman
Outcome
Crown objection allowed in part and disallowed in part; concrete questions allowed with qualification, omnibus question disallowed.
Legal Topics
['money Laundering' 'proceeds of Crime' 'cross Examination' 'section 135 Evidence Act 1995' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'jury Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['money Laundering' 'proceeds of Crime' 'cross Examination' 'section 135 Evidence Act 1995' 'unfair Prejudice' 'misleading or Confusing Evidence' 'jury Trial']

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 Jury Trial on a Charge of Money Laundering Under S.400.3(1) Criminal Code (cth) / Procedural Ruling on Crown Objection to Questions in Cross Examination of Crown Witness Daniel Hausman

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether questions in cross-examination asking whether Mr Hausman told the Accused that Plutus got their money from fraud, tax fraud, or blackmail of Plutus over a tax fraud were unfairly prejudicial to the Crown or misleading or confusing under s.135 Evidence Act 1995.' 'Whether an omnibus question that Mr Hausman never told the Accused anything like that during face-to-face dealings should be allowed.' 'Whether the questions were sufficiently concrete propositions or instead required the witness to consider the totality of numerous communications and meetings.']

Ratio Decidendi

The concrete proposed questions could be asked because, if made clear to the witness and jury, they were confined to whether particular phrases or words were used by Mr Hausman to the Accused and were not unfair to the Crown or misleading or confusing. The omnibus question asking whether Mr Hausman never told the Accused anything like that during face-to-face dealings was disallowed because it was not a concrete phrase or proposition, required consideration of various meetings and surrounding communications, and would contravene s.135 Evidence Act 1995 by being unfair to the Crown as well as misleading or confusing.

Court Disposition

Crown objection allowed in part and disallowed in part; concrete questions allowed with qualification, omnibus question disallowed.

Orders

  • ['The questions involving concrete propositions were allowed, provided it was made clear that they related to whether a phrase along those lines was ever used by Mr Hausman to the Accused.' 'The omnibus-type question involving the concept of "anything like that" was disallowed.']