Hamod v State of New South Wales (No 10)

In the matter of Hamod v State of New South Wales, the plaintiff sought to introduce a transcript from a previous criminal proceeding against them, dismissed by the Local Court, as evidence in a claim for malicious prosecution. The defendant contested the admissibility of the transcript, arguing that it was not relevant to any fact in issue. The court considered the admissibility of the transcript under section 136 of the Evidence Act 1995, focusing on whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential prejudicial effect.

The court had to decide whether the transcript could be admitted as evidence in the current proceedings, particularly as it pertained to the malicious prosecution claim. The key issue was whether the probative value of the transcript outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendant. The court examined whether the plaintiffs had identified specific parts of the transcript that were relevant to the facts in issue in the malicious prosecution claim.

The court found that the plaintiffs had not identified any particular portion of the transcript that was relevant to a fact in issue in the malicious prosecution claim. The court emphasised that the probative value of the transcript was insufficient to justify its admission, particularly as the plaintiffs had not demonstrated how any part of the transcript related to the malicious prosecution claim. The court ruled that the prejudicial effect of the transcript outweighed its probative value. Consequently, the application to tender the transcript was rejected.

The court ordered that the transcript of the previous proceedings could not be admitted as evidence in the current claim for malicious prosecution. The court made it clear that without specific identification of relevant portions of the transcript, it could not be considered probative of the facts in issue in the malicious prosecution claim.