R v Gatt (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 490

R v Gatt (No 4) [2018] NSWSC 490

The disputed telephone calls were relevant because, considered with the other evidence and issues opened in the trial, they had a logical and rational connection with the Crown's circumstantial case, including the nature of the relationship between Mr Gatt and Mr Borg, their respective roles, Mr Borg's credit, and whether they were involved in a joint criminal enterprise to shoot Bassil Hijazi. The calls had real probative value, and that value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly where drugs and firearms were not directly discussed in the calls and appropriate jury directions could address permissible and impermissible uses of evidence about drugs and firearms.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Evidence Ruling / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Admissibility of Disputed Telephone Calls
Outcome
The disputed telephone calls were held to be relevant and admissible and were not excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['relevance' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'telephone Calls' 'unfair Prejudice' 'section 137 Exclusion' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['relevance' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'telephone Calls' 'unfair Prejudice' 'section 137 Exclusion' 'joint Criminal Enterprise']

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 Evidence Ruling / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Admissibility of Disputed Telephone Calls

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether two telephone calls made by the accused to Mr Borg in December 2013 were relevant to the Crown's circumstantial case." 'Whether the telephone call evidence was admissible under ss 55 and 56 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the telephone call evidence had to be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed telephone calls were relevant because, considered with the other evidence and issues opened in the trial, they had a logical and rational connection with the Crown's circumstantial case, including the nature of the relationship between Mr Gatt and Mr Borg, their respective roles, Mr Borg's credit, and whether they were involved in a joint criminal enterprise to shoot Bassil Hijazi. The calls had real probative value, and that value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, particularly where drugs and firearms were not directly discussed in the calls and appropriate jury directions could address permissible and impermissible uses of evidence about drugs and firearms.

Court Disposition

The disputed telephone calls were held to be relevant and admissible and were not excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Orders

  • ['Evidence relevant and admissible and could not be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act.']