R v Syed Basri, Saripah; Madubuko, Henry; Mohammed, Lokman and Okonkwo, Ifeanyi [2008] NSWDC 386

R v Syed Basri, Saripah; Madubuko, Henry; Mohammed, Lokman and Okonkwo, Ifeanyi [2008] NSWDC 386

The proposed coincidence evidence does not satisfy the requirements of s.98 Evidence Act 1995 as the alleged similarities between accused's circumstances are not substantially and relevantly similar. There is real risk of prejudice if Mohammed is tried jointly, and severance of his trial as well as the count relating to Madubuko is appropriate to ensure a fair trial.

Parties
Accused: Saripah Zamrrut Binti Syed Basri; Accused: Henry Ugo Madubuko; Accused: Lokman Mohammed; Accused: Ifeanyi Fidel Okonkwo; Prosecution: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Determination of Severance and Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence
Outcome
Severance application granted in part; Crown's application to lead coincidence evidence rejected.
Legal Topics
Severance of Trials, Coincidence Evidence, Importation of Border Controlled Drugs, Controlled Delivery, Fault Elements in Criminal Cases
Criminal Law Severance of Trials Coincidence Evidence Importation of Border Controlled Drugs Controlled Delivery Fault Elements in Criminal Cases

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Saripah Zamrrut Binti Syed Basri

Accused

Henry Ugo Madubuko

Accused

Lokman Mohammed

Accused

Ifeanyi Fidel Okonkwo

Accused

Regina

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Determination of Severance and Admissibility of Coincidence Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the accused Mohammed be tried separately from the other accused?
  2. 2 Should the count relating to Madubuko's alleged attempt to possess heroin imported by Mohammed be severed?
  3. 3 Is the Crown's proposed coincidence evidence admissible under s.98 Evidence Act 1995?

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed coincidence evidence does not satisfy the requirements of s.98 Evidence Act 1995 as the alleged similarities between accused's circumstances are not substantially and relevantly similar. There is real risk of prejudice if Mohammed is tried jointly, and severance of his trial as well as the count relating to Madubuko is appropriate to ensure a fair trial.

Court Disposition

Severance application granted in part; Crown's application to lead coincidence evidence rejected.

Orders

  • Lokman Mohammed to be tried separately.
  • Count 4 in the indictment (attempt to possess heroin imported by Mohammed) severed and Madubuko to be tried on that charge when Mohammed is tried.