R v Qaumi & Ors (No 33) [2016] NSWSC 676

R v Qaumi & Ors (No 33) [2016] NSWSC 676

Witness G's evidence fell within several s 165 categories, including alleged admissions, evidence from a person criminally concerned in some events, and prison informer evidence. No good reasons were advanced for not giving the warning. Given the expected length of the trial, the fact that Witness G was the first of many informant witnesses, and the prosecution's significant reliance on informant evidence obtained in circumstances involving benefits, it was appropriate to warn the jury shortly after Witness G's evidence while also reminding them that the evidence must be assessed in light of all the evidence and need not be rejected in whole or in part.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Application for a S 165 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Warning to the Jury
Outcome
Application granted; s 165 warning given to the jury at the conclusion of Witness G's evidence.
Legal Topics
['unreliable Evidence' 'jury Warning' 'prison Informer Evidence' 'admissions' 'timing of Jury Directions' 'section 165 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['unreliable Evidence' 'jury Warning' 'prison Informer Evidence' 'admissions' 'timing of Jury Directions' 'section 165 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']

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 / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Application for a S 165 Evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Warning to the Jury

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether a warning under s 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) should be given to the jury at the conclusion of Witness G's evidence rather than only in the summing up." "Whether Witness G's evidence fell within categories of evidence that may be unreliable under s 165(1)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Witness G's evidence fell within several s 165 categories, including alleged admissions, evidence from a person criminally concerned in some events, and prison informer evidence. No good reasons were advanced for not giving the warning. Given the expected length of the trial, the fact that Witness G was the first of many informant witnesses, and the prosecution's significant reliance on informant evidence obtained in circumstances involving benefits, it was appropriate to warn the jury shortly after Witness G's evidence while also reminding them that the evidence must be assessed in light of all the evidence and need not be rejected in whole or in part.

Court Disposition

Application granted; s 165 warning given to the jury at the conclusion of Witness G's evidence.

Orders

  • ["Warning under s 165 Evidence Act provided at the conclusion of Witness G's evidence."]