Ali v R [2022] NSWCCA 199

Ali v R [2022] NSWCCA 199

The interpreter's evidence that the male voice was the same in the 24 Hindi calls was relevant and admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Her opinion was based on repeated listening over many days, her qualifications and experience as an interpreter and translator, and her familiarity with the Hindi language, including tone, pitch, accent and speech patterns, so she was in a better position than the jury and was properly treated as an ad hoc expert. The Crown was not obliged, in the absence of any trial request or challenge to the interpreter's evidence, to play all 24 Hindi calls to the jury; playing the entirety of the calls would have lacked utility and no miscarriage of...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time and Appeal Against Convictions in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Time to file a Notice of Appeal extended; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['expert Evidence' 'ad Hoc Expert Evidence' 'voice Identification Evidence' 'interpreter Evidence' 'relevance' 'opinion Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'telephone Intercepts' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'extension of Time' 'crown Calling Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['expert Evidence' 'ad Hoc Expert Evidence' 'voice Identification Evidence' 'interpreter Evidence' 'relevance' 'opinion Evidence' 'circumstantial Evidence' 'telephone Intercepts' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'extension of Time' 'crown Calling 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
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal Against Conviction / Application for Extension of Time and Appeal Against Convictions in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the interpreter's evidence that the male voice was the same voice in each Hindi call was relevant and admissible as opinion evidence." 'Whether the interpreter was in no better position than the jury to determine whether the male voice was the same in each Hindi call.' 'Whether a miscarriage of justice arose because the Crown did not play the entirety of the Hindi telephone calls to the jury.' 'Whether leave was required under r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) because no objection or request was made at trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The interpreter's evidence that the male voice was the same in the 24 Hindi calls was relevant and admissible under s 79 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). Her opinion was based on repeated listening over many days, her qualifications and experience as an interpreter and translator, and her familiarity with the Hindi language, including tone, pitch, accent and speech patterns, so she was in a better position than the jury and was properly treated as an ad hoc expert. The Crown was not obliged, in the absence of any trial request or challenge to the interpreter's evidence, to play all 24 Hindi calls to the jury; playing the entirety of the calls would have lacked utility and no miscarriage of...

Court Disposition

Time to file a Notice of Appeal extended; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The time for filing a Notice of Appeal is extended to 23 February 2022.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']