R v Hawi & ors (No 27) [2011] NSWSC 1673

The probative value of the video evidence (Deng and Watermark footage) is not outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice, nor is it misleading or confusing. There is no basis for exclusion or limitation under ss 135, 136, or mandatory exclusion under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995. The jury can be directed appropriately regarding interpretation of such evidence.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 01 September 2011
Procedural Posture: Criminal / Interlocutory Application to Exclude or Limit Use of Evidence
Outcome: Application to exclude or limit evidence refused
Legal Topics: ['evidence' 'judicial Discretion to Exclude or Limit Use of Evidence' 'mandatory Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence' 'video Evidence']

['criminal Law'] ['evidence' 'judicial Discretion to Exclude or Limit Use of Evidence' 'mandatory Exclusion of Prejudicial Evidence' 'video 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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Interlocutory Application to Exclude or Limit Use of Evidence

Legal Issues

1 ['Should the video evidence (Deng footage and Watermark footage) be excluded or limited under the Evidence Act 1995 due to unfair prejudice, misleading or confusing nature?']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to exclude or limit evidence refused

Orders

['No exclusion or limitation is imposed on the Deng or Watermark video footage.']