R v Mehajer (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 197

R v Mehajer (No. 3) [2023] NSWDC 197

The applicant's allegation that the images in Exhibit X were manipulated was unsupported by evidence and rested on speculation and his own perception. No expert opinion or factual foundation was before the court, the complainant had already been extensively cross-examined, and delaying the proceedings or issuing subpoenae for further evidence and documents was not appropriate. The purposes for which release was sought did not amount to special or exceptional circumstances under s 22B of the Bail Act 2013. Any proposed mobile phone demonstration had limited probative value and was substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, misleading or confusing the jury, and conjecture.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Post Verdict Applications for Adjournment, Subpoenae and Release After Jury Verdicts of Guilty and Before Sentence
Outcome
Applications refused.
Legal Topics
['release Application After Conviction Before Sentence' 'subpoena to Complainant' 'application to Adjourn Trial to Investigate Expert Evidence' 'alleged Manipulation of Images' 'section 135 Evidence Act 1995']
['criminal Law' 'bail' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['release Application After Conviction Before Sentence' 'subpoena to Complainant' 'application to Adjourn Trial to Investigate Expert Evidence' 'alleged Manipulation of Images' 'section 135 Evidence Act 1995']

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 / Post Verdict Applications for Adjournment, Subpoenae and Release After Jury Verdicts of Guilty and Before Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial should be adjourned to allow the applicant to investigate the availability of a witness to address the possible manipulation of images in Exhibit X.' 'Whether subpoenae should issue requiring the complainant to produce documents and attend to give further evidence about alleged manipulation of images.' 'Whether the applicant should be released on bail after conviction and before sentence.' 'Whether a proposed mobile phone demonstration about image manipulation should be permitted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's allegation that the images in Exhibit X were manipulated was unsupported by evidence and rested on speculation and his own perception. No expert opinion or factual foundation was before the court, the complainant had already been extensively cross-examined, and delaying the proceedings or issuing subpoenae for further evidence and documents was not appropriate. The purposes for which release was sought did not amount to special or exceptional circumstances under s 22B of the Bail Act 2013. Any proposed mobile phone demonstration had limited probative value and was substantially outweighed by risks of unfair prejudice, misleading or confusing the jury, and conjecture.

Court Disposition

Applications refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse the application for the adjournment of the trial for the applicant to investigate the availability of a witness to speak to the possibility of manipulation of the images in Exhibit X.' 'Refuse the application for the issue of subpoenae for the production of documents by the complainant, and for her...