R v Barakat; R v Younes (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1310

R v Barakat; R v Younes (No 4) [2016] NSWSC 1310

Evidence of possession of a bulletproof vest and the telephone intercept are excluded, as their probative value does not outweigh the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused, and mentioning a weapon in casual conversation is not sufficient to demonstrate familiarity with firearms for relevance purposes.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Mahmoud Barakat; Accused: David Younes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling
Outcome
evidence excluded
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Relevance, Unfair Prejudice, Tendency Evidence, Coincidence Evidence
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Relevance Unfair Prejudice Tendency Evidence Coincidence Evidence

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Mahmoud Barakat

Accused

David Younes

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether evidence of possession of a bulletproof vest is admissible
  2. 2 whether evidence of a telephone intercept referring to a 'Colt 45' is admissible

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of possession of a bulletproof vest and the telephone intercept are excluded, as their probative value does not outweigh the risk of unfair prejudice to the accused, and mentioning a weapon in casual conversation is not sufficient to demonstrate familiarity with firearms for relevance purposes.

Court Disposition

evidence excluded

Orders

  • Evidence of the accused's possession of a bulletproof vest is excluded.
  • Evidence of the call between the accused and Eleena Bakhos on 17 October 2016 is excluded.