R v Sun [2021] NSWDC 837

R v Sun [2021] NSWDC 837

The evidence concerning the murder was not sufficiently probative of the fact for which it was tendered, namely that Witness A was a person of influence or connected with what befell the deceased. Haidar Al Jeezai could only recount what he said the deceased told him, the evidence was confusing and misleading, there was no demonstrated connection with the murder, and no written notice had been given under s 67 Evidence Act 1995; the court was not persuaded to direct that s 65(8) apply despite that failure. The asserted lay opinion about Witness A being respected, influential or able to provide protection was not supported by the facts Haidar Al Jeezai said he saw or heard, and at most...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 April 2021
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Voir Dire Procedural Ruling During Trial on Applications to Lead Evidence
Outcome
Applications refused.
Legal Topics
['voir Dire' 'hearsay Evidence' 'notice Requirements for Hearsay Exceptions' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'duress Defence' 'controlled Operation']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['voir Dire' 'hearsay Evidence' 'notice Requirements for Hearsay Exceptions' 'lay Opinion Evidence' 'discretionary Exclusion of Evidence' 'duress Defence' 'controlled Operation']

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 / Voir Dire Procedural Ruling During Trial on Applications to Lead Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused should be permitted to lead evidence concerning the murder at John Morony Centre said to involve circumstances relevant to Witness A's influence or capacity to instil fear." 'Whether evidence of representations allegedly made by the deceased to Haidar Al Jeezai was admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule despite no written notice under s 67 Evidence Act 1995.' "Whether evidence of Haidar Al Jeezai's asserted opinion that Witness A was respected, influential, and able to provide protection in custody was admissible as lay opinion evidence." 'Whether the evidence should be excluded under s 135 Evidence Act 1995 because it was confusing, misleading, of limited probative value, or unfair to the Crown.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence concerning the murder was not sufficiently probative of the fact for which it was tendered, namely that Witness A was a person of influence or connected with what befell the deceased. Haidar Al Jeezai could only recount what he said the deceased told him, the evidence was confusing and misleading, there was no demonstrated connection with the murder, and no written notice had been given under s 67 Evidence Act 1995; the court was not persuaded to direct that s 65(8) apply despite that failure. The asserted lay opinion about Witness A being respected, influential or able to provide protection was not supported by the facts Haidar Al Jeezai said he saw or heard, and at most...

Court Disposition

Applications refused.

Orders

  • ["Refuse the accused's application to lead evidence of the murder at John Moroney Centre on 19 July 2017." 'Refuse the application to lead evidence of the opinion asserted by Haidar Al Jeezai of Witness A.']