Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 648

Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 648

The evidence of the representations by Ahmad and Altaf is admissible only as evidence of the fact that the statements were made by the visitor present (but not including the name 'Faheem') for the purposes of possible identification, not as admissions by the accused nor as exceptions to the hearsay rule under s 65(2)(c), as the Crown failed to establish it was the accused who made the representations. There is no basis under ss 135 or 137 to exclude this evidence, provided the name 'Faheem' is not led.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application Regarding Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
Application to exclude evidence refused in part; evidence admissible on limited basis under s 136 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), excluding evidence relating to the name 'Faheem'.
Legal Topics
['admissions by Accused' 'hearsay Exception' 'hearsay Rule' 'identification Evidence' 'limitation Order' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 81, 65, 135, 137, 136']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['admissions by Accused' 'hearsay Exception' 'hearsay Rule' 'identification Evidence' 'limitation Order' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) Ss 81, 65, 135, 137, 136']

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 / Pre Trial Application Regarding Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statements allegedly made by the accused to witnesses Ahmad and Altaf are admissible as admissions under s 81 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the statements are admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule by operation of ss 65(1) and 65(2)(c) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether evidence of the representations should otherwise be excluded under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence of the representations by Ahmad and Altaf is admissible only as evidence of the fact that the statements were made by the visitor present (but not including the name 'Faheem') for the purposes of possible identification, not as admissions by the accused nor as exceptions to the hearsay rule under s 65(2)(c), as the Crown failed to establish it was the accused who made the representations. There is no basis under ss 135 or 137 to exclude this evidence, provided the name 'Faheem' is not led.

Court Disposition

Application to exclude evidence refused in part; evidence admissible on limited basis under s 136 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), excluding evidence relating to the name 'Faheem'.

Orders

  • ["Evidence of statements made by the second visitor is admissible as evidence that such statements were made by the person present in the Lakemba premises, but evidence relating to the name 'Faheem' may not be led." 'No exclusion of the evidence under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act.']