R v Hawat (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1699

R v Hawat (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 1699

LD 6 was relevant because the conversation, including the objected passage, referred to the accused's van, which was a significant part of the Crown case, and the probative value of the material was high and not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. LD 8 was not challenged for relevance and was probative because it contained an admission concerning the accused being at the scene and was relevant to whether alleged lies to police were pre-planned rather than spontaneous; using it as a rehearsal for the police interview was not logically disconnected from the purpose of its tender or the issues in the case, and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding for Murder / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Listening Device Material
Outcome
The material contained in LD 6 and LD 8 is admissible.
Legal Topics
['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'listening Device Recordings' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'admissions' 'lies Direction']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'accessory Before the Fact' 'listening Device Recordings' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'admissions' 'lies Direction']

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 Proceeding for Murder / Procedural Ruling on Admissibility of Listening Device Material

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the material in LD 6 was relevant under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the probative value of the LD 6 material was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the material in LD 8 should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because of a danger of unfair prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

LD 6 was relevant because the conversation, including the objected passage, referred to the accused's van, which was a significant part of the Crown case, and the probative value of the material was high and not outweighed by any danger of unfair prejudice. LD 8 was not challenged for relevance and was probative because it contained an admission concerning the accused being at the scene and was relevant to whether alleged lies to police were pre-planned rather than spontaneous; using it as a rehearsal for the police interview was not logically disconnected from the purpose of its tender or the issues in the case, and its probative value was not outweighed by unfair prejudice.

Court Disposition

The material contained in LD 6 and LD 8 is admissible.

Orders

  • ['The material contained in LD 6 and LD 8 is admissible.']