R v Qaumi & Qaumi (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1487

R v Qaumi & Qaumi (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1487

The evidence that Farhad and Mumtaz Qaumi previously engaged Witness L to carry out the Hamzy shooting at a residential home was tendency evidence of a specific kind and had significant probative value on whether the accused engaged Witness L to carry out the Antoun shooting. Although the evidence was prejudicial, the trial would be conducted by judge alone, reducing the risk of impermissible reasoning. In a judge alone trial, the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed the prejudicial effect it may have on the accused, so the evidence was admissible under ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding: Accused Charged With Murder of Joseph Antoun / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence
Outcome
The tendency evidence is admissible.
Legal Topics
['tendency Evidence' 'murder' 'significant Probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'judge Alone Trial' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 97 and 101']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['tendency Evidence' 'murder' 'significant Probative Value' 'prejudicial Effect' 'judge Alone Trial' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 97 and 101']

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: Accused Charged With Murder of Joseph Antoun / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Tendency Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence that Farhad and Mumtaz Qaumi previously directed or requested Witness L to attend a residential house to shoot and kill an occupant was tendency evidence.' 'Whether the proposed tendency evidence had significant probative value under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the probative value of the tendency evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it may have on the accused under s 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the fact that the Antoun trial would be conducted by judge alone reduced the prejudicial effect of the tendency evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence that Farhad and Mumtaz Qaumi previously engaged Witness L to carry out the Hamzy shooting at a residential home was tendency evidence of a specific kind and had significant probative value on whether the accused engaged Witness L to carry out the Antoun shooting. Although the evidence was prejudicial, the trial would be conducted by judge alone, reducing the risk of impermissible reasoning. In a judge alone trial, the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed the prejudicial effect it may have on the accused, so the evidence was admissible under ss 97 and 101 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

The tendency evidence is admissible.

Orders

  • ['The tendency evidence is admissible.']