R v Qaumi and Ors (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1495
The evidence of telephone conversations has some capacity to be used as an admission, but its probative value is not particularly high and is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused; therefore, s 137 Evidence Act applies and the evidence must be excluded.
- Parties
- Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Farhad Qaumi; Accused: Mumtaz Qaumi; Accused: Jamil Qaumi; Accused: Amanda Crowe; Accused: Mohammad Zarshoy; Accused: Mohammad Kalal
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 February 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome
- evidence excluded
- Legal Topics
- Admissibility of Evidence, Assessment of Probative Value, Danger of Unfair Prejudice
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Prosecution
Farhad Qaumi
Accused
Mumtaz Qaumi
Accused
Jamil Qaumi
Accused
Amanda Crowe
Accused
Mohammad Zarshoy
Accused
Mohammad Kalal
Accused
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether evidence of telephone conversations between accused is admissible
- 2 Whether statements made constitute admissions
- 3 Whether probative value outweighed by unfair prejudice
Ratio Decidendi
The evidence of telephone conversations has some capacity to be used as an admission, but its probative value is not particularly high and is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused; therefore, s 137 Evidence Act applies and the evidence must be excluded.
Court Disposition
evidence excluded
Orders
- The evidence of telephone conversations between Mumtaz Qaumi, Mahmoud Atwa, Faisal Zarshoy and Farhad Qaumi on 11 April 2015 is inadmissible
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment