R v Abdollahi (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 477

R v Abdollahi (No 4) [2013] NSWSC 477

The evidence was admissible. The circumstances on the roof sufficiently indicated a common purpose between Mr Mansoor and Mr Darabi to demonstrate or protest dissatisfaction with detention, and the utterances were made in furtherance of that common purpose. The concerns about the interpreter showed dissatisfaction with the interpreter's conduct but did not establish sufficient doubt about accuracy to make unfair prejudice outweigh probative value. The threat concerning an imam had probative value in showing unwillingness to negotiate and pursuit of the alleged common purpose, and the risk of unfair prejudice did not outweigh that probative value.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural and Other Ruling on Evidentiary Objections
Outcome
Evidence admissible
Legal Topics
['admissibility' 'hearsay Evidence' 'admissions Made With Authority' 'common Purpose' 'unfair Prejudice' 'interpreter Evidence' 'riot' 'affray']
['evidence' 'criminal Law'] ['admissibility' 'hearsay Evidence' 'admissions Made With Authority' 'common Purpose' 'unfair Prejudice' 'interpreter Evidence' 'riot' 'affray']

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 / Procedural and Other Ruling on Evidentiary Objections

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether utterances attributed to Mr Mansoor and Mr Darabi on the roof of the Macquarie Building were admissible against Mr Mansoor under the common purpose exception.' 'Whether evidence of a conversation between Ms Gadd and Mr Mansoor through an interpreter should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act because of uncertainty about accurate interpretation.' 'Whether evidence that Mr Mansoor threatened to throw tiles at an imam should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act because of unfair prejudice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence was admissible. The circumstances on the roof sufficiently indicated a common purpose between Mr Mansoor and Mr Darabi to demonstrate or protest dissatisfaction with detention, and the utterances were made in furtherance of that common purpose. The concerns about the interpreter showed dissatisfaction with the interpreter's conduct but did not establish sufficient doubt about accuracy to make unfair prejudice outweigh probative value. The threat concerning an imam had probative value in showing unwillingness to negotiate and pursuit of the alleged common purpose, and the risk of unfair prejudice did not outweigh that probative value.

Court Disposition

Evidence admissible

Orders

  • ['The evidence objected to is admissible.']