R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 20) [2016] NSWSC 23

R v A2; R v KM; R v Vaziri (No. 20) [2016] NSWSC 23

The court declined to give directions under s.66 Evidence Act 1995 as the complaint evidence was already available to the jury in other admissible forms. A Murray direction was not warranted since the Crown case was not based solely on single witnesses C1 and C2, but included direct and circumstantial evidence. The court declined to give a solely circumstantial evidence direction, finding the case involved both direct and circumstantial evidence. Application for a s.165A(2) warning regarding the child witness C2 was refused, as a sufficient foundation was not established beyond her age and mild intellectual disability. Good character directions were to be given for the accused. Directions...

Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: A2; Accused: KM; Accused: Shabbir Mohammedbhai Vaziri
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Rulings During Summing Up
Outcome
Rulings on directions during trial; reasons for those rulings provided.
Legal Topics
Summing Up, Jury Directions, Elements of Offences, S.66 Evidence Act, Murray Direction, Circumstantial Evidence Direction, S.165 A(2) Warning, Good Character Direction, Post Offence Conduct, Consciousness of Guilt
Criminal Law Summing Up Jury Directions Elements of Offences S.66 Evidence Act Murray Direction Circumstantial Evidence Direction S.165 A(2) Warning +3 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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

A2

Accused

KM

Accused

Shabbir Mohammedbhai Vaziri

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Rulings During Summing Up

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether directions under s.66 Evidence Act 1995 are required for evidence of complaint by C1 and C2
  2. 2 Whether a 'Murray' direction should be given for essential witnesses
  3. 3 Whether a circumstantial evidence direction should be given

Ratio Decidendi

The court declined to give directions under s.66 Evidence Act 1995 as the complaint evidence was already available to the jury in other admissible forms. A Murray direction was not warranted since the Crown case was not based solely on single witnesses C1 and C2, but included direct and circumstantial evidence. The court declined to give a solely circumstantial evidence direction, finding the case involved both direct and circumstantial evidence. Application for a s.165A(2) warning regarding the child witness C2 was refused, as a sufficient foundation was not established beyond her age and mild intellectual disability. Good character directions were to be given for the accused. Directions...

Court Disposition

Rulings on directions during trial; reasons for those rulings provided.

Orders

  • Declined to give s.66 Evidence Act directions as complaint evidence was already admissible and available to the jury.
  • Declined to give a Murray direction as evidence was not solely from single witnesses.