R v Al Batat & Ors (No 23) [2020] NSWSC 1370

R v Al Batat & Ors (No 23) [2020] NSWSC 1370

The evidence in paragraph 29 of Ms Hsu's statement has relatively high probative value in relation to motive (drug debt), and the potential for unfair prejudice caused by police statements to the witness is incalculable; however, I am satisfied that the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, and the evidence is admissible pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Abdallah Hassan Al Batat; Accused: Ying Cheng Luo; Accused: Ian Fan; Accused: Jaiyu Liu; Accused: Jacob Blake Bayliss; Accused: Nai An Li
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling
Outcome
Evidence admitted
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Evidence, Unfair Prejudice, Probative Value, Drug Debt as Motive, Police Disclosure to Witness
Criminal Law Admissibility of Evidence Unfair Prejudice Probative Value Drug Debt as Motive Police Disclosure to Witness

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Abdallah Hassan Al Batat

Accused

Ying Cheng Luo

Accused

Ian Fan

Accused

Jaiyu Liu

Accused

Jacob Blake Bayliss

Accused

Nai An Li

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence in paragraph 29 of Ms Hsu's statement is admissible under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether police disclosure to the witness enhanced her confidence and causes unfair prejudice
  3. 3 Assessment of probative value versus danger of unfair prejudice

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence in paragraph 29 of Ms Hsu's statement has relatively high probative value in relation to motive (drug debt), and the potential for unfair prejudice caused by police statements to the witness is incalculable; however, I am satisfied that the probative value outweighs the danger of unfair prejudice, and the evidence is admissible pursuant to s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted

Orders

  • The evidence in paragraph 29 of the statement of Ms Hsu is admissible.