RADI v R [2010] NSWCCA 265

RADI v R [2010] NSWCCA 265

Evidence of the bullets was properly admitted as indicia relevant to the offence charged and not solely for tendency purposes; the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence or in not giving a tendency direction, and sufficient warnings were given regarding their use.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Conviction Appeal, Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'tendency Direction' 'circumstantial Evidence']
['criminal Law'] ['supply of Prohibited Drug' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'tendency Direction' 'circumstantial 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 / Conviction Appeal, Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence of bullets found in appellant's car should have been admitted" 'Whether such evidence was relevant or went only to tendency towards criminality' 'Whether trial judge erred in failing to direct the jury regarding evidence of bullets, currency, and multiple mobile phones']

Ratio Decidendi

Evidence of the bullets was properly admitted as indicia relevant to the offence charged and not solely for tendency purposes; the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence or in not giving a tendency direction, and sufficient warnings were given regarding their use.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Appeal dismissed']