R v Al Batat & Ors (No 30) [2020] NSWSC 1475

R v Al Batat & Ors (No 30) [2020] NSWSC 1475

The prosecution cannot adduce evidence about the four specific matters (whether the witness was on drugs, if she was threatened with charges, if she was asked leading questions, or if her statement was made voluntarily) through the police officers because these matters were not put to the witness in cross-examination as required by s 106(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Only the more general evidence regarding the fact and timing of the officers' interviews and statement-taking may be led.

Parties
Prosecutor: 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
21 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial
Outcome
Prosecutor may call witnesses on limited matters only; not on specified credibility topics.
Legal Topics
Credibility Evidence, Cross Examination, Rule in Browne V Dunn, Exceptions to Credibility Rule, Section 38 Cross Examination, Hearsay, Procedural Fairness
Criminal Law Evidence Credibility Evidence Cross Examination Rule in Browne V Dunn Exceptions to Credibility Rule Section 38 Cross Examination Hearsay +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecutor

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 / Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the prosecution may adduce evidence from police officers as to the circumstances in which a witness's statement was taken for the purpose of rebutting credibility issues raised in cross-examination.
  2. 2 Whether s 106(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) is satisfied to permit such evidence to be adduced.
  3. 3 Whether failure to put certain matters to a witness affects admissibility of evidence under the credibility rule.

Ratio Decidendi

The prosecution cannot adduce evidence about the four specific matters (whether the witness was on drugs, if she was threatened with charges, if she was asked leading questions, or if her statement was made voluntarily) through the police officers because these matters were not put to the witness in cross-examination as required by s 106(1)(a) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Only the more general evidence regarding the fact and timing of the officers' interviews and statement-taking may be led.

Court Disposition

Prosecutor may call witnesses on limited matters only; not on specified credibility topics.

Orders

  • The Prosecutor may call the witnesses to give evidence in accordance with paragraph [25], but not to give evidence of the way the statement was taken or of the four specific matters referred to in paragraphs [7], [14] and [26].