R v Xie (No 11) [2015] NSWSC 2123

R v Xie (No 11) [2015] NSWSC 2123

Only the audiovisual record showing the accused destroying shoe boxes was sufficiently probative and admissible; the remainder of the surveillance device transcripts, on a fair reading, did not rationally affect proof of any fact in issue, did not reveal collusion or implied admissions, and thus were not admissible under s 56 Evidence Act. The probative value of those other conversations did not outweigh the risk of prejudice or irrelevance.

Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Accused: Lian Bin (Robert) Xie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Procedural and Other Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Single transcript (accused destroying shoe boxes) admissible; all other transcripts not admitted.
Legal Topics
Admissibility, Relevance, Surveillance Transcripts, Section 56 Evidence Act, Probative Value
Criminal Law Evidence Admissibility Relevance Surveillance Transcripts Section 56 Evidence Act Probative Value

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Lian Bin (Robert) Xie

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Procedural and Other Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether multiple surveillance device transcripts are admissible under s 56 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether probative value of the transcripts outweighs prejudicial effect under ss 135, 137 Evidence Act

Ratio Decidendi

Only the audiovisual record showing the accused destroying shoe boxes was sufficiently probative and admissible; the remainder of the surveillance device transcripts, on a fair reading, did not rationally affect proof of any fact in issue, did not reveal collusion or implied admissions, and thus were not admissible under s 56 Evidence Act. The probative value of those other conversations did not outweigh the risk of prejudice or irrelevance.

Court Disposition

Single transcript (accused destroying shoe boxes) admissible; all other transcripts not admitted.

Orders

  • The audiovisual record of the accused destroying shoe boxes is admissible.
  • The remaining surveillance device transcripts are not admissible.