R v Al Batat & Ors (No 11) [2020] NSWSC 1115

R v Al Batat & Ors (No 11) [2020] NSWSC 1115

The evidence that Mr Fan organised a return trip to China and was concerned about taking it had limited probative value and carried a real risk of unfair prejudice because the jury might misuse it as evidence of attempted flight or treat concern about being stopped at the airport as proof of guilt rather than suspicion or fear of investigation. In light of other post-offence conduct evidence, the China trip evidence added little and its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, requiring exclusion under s 137.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings Involving Charges Including Murder, Attempted Murder and Supply Methylamphetamine / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility
Outcome
Evidence excluded as inadmissible.
Legal Topics
['consciousness of Guilt' 'post Offence Conduct' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 137']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['consciousness of Guilt' 'post Offence Conduct' 'unfair Prejudice' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw), S 137']

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 Proceedings Involving Charges Including Murder, Attempted Murder and Supply Methylamphetamine / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether evidence that Mr Fan organised a trip to China and was concerned about taking the trip was admissible as evidence of consciousness of guilt.' 'Whether the probative value of that evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137.' 'Whether there was a real risk the jury would misuse the evidence by reasoning that Mr Fan was attempting to flee or by treating concern about arrest as guilt.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence that Mr Fan organised a return trip to China and was concerned about taking it had limited probative value and carried a real risk of unfair prejudice because the jury might misuse it as evidence of attempted flight or treat concern about being stopped at the airport as proof of guilt rather than suspicion or fear of investigation. In light of other post-offence conduct evidence, the China trip evidence added little and its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, requiring exclusion under s 137.

Court Disposition

Evidence excluded as inadmissible.

Orders

  • ['The evidence that Mr Fan organised a trip to China, and his concerns about taking that trip, is inadmissible.']