R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243

R v Kaddour [2019] NSWDC 243

Evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 has significant probative value and is admissible as tendency evidence (counts 1-5) for rebutting minor role and innocent DNA transfer, and as coincidence evidence (counts 4-5), as the presence of DNA matching the accused on drug manufacture items at both locations supports the Crown case; temporal gap and dissimilarities do not reduce admissibility due to contextual factors and repeated conduct.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Ahmed Kaddour
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence
Outcome
The Crown application is allowed; evidence of Bingara events is admissible as tendency and coincidence evidence for purposes identified.
Legal Topics
Tendency Evidence, Coincidence Evidence, Admissibility, Probative Value, DNA Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Law Tendency Evidence Coincidence Evidence Admissibility Probative Value DNA 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Ahmed Kaddour

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Ruling on Admissibility of Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether evidence of events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as tendency evidence in relation to counts 1 – 5
  2. 2 Whether evidence of events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as coincidence evidence in relation to counts 4 and 5
  3. 3 Assessment of significant probative value under Evidence Act sections 97 and 98

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 has significant probative value and is admissible as tendency evidence (counts 1-5) for rebutting minor role and innocent DNA transfer, and as coincidence evidence (counts 4-5), as the presence of DNA matching the accused on drug manufacture items at both locations supports the Crown case; temporal gap and dissimilarities do not reduce admissibility due to contextual factors and repeated conduct.

Court Disposition

The Crown application is allowed; evidence of Bingara events is admissible as tendency and coincidence evidence for purposes identified.

Orders

  • The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as tendency evidence in relation to counts 1 – 5 for the purpose identified at [86].
  • The evidence of the events at Bingara in 2015 is admissible as coincidence evidence in relation to counts 4 and 5.