Kaddour v R

The appellant, Kaddour, appealed against his conviction and sentence for murder. The trial judge found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years in prison with a non-parole period of 15 years. The primary issue for the court was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable given the reliance on the testimony of a single witness, which contained contradictions, and the admissibility of certain hearsay evidence. The court also had to consider whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion under section 38 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in relation to cross-examining a witness, and if the sentencing judge appropriately directed the jury on the reliability of the witness.

The court found that the Crown's case heavily relied on the testimony of one witness, which had inconsistencies, but nevertheless was sufficient to support a conviction. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, as the evidence, when viewed as a whole, provided a sufficient basis for the jury's conclusion. Regarding the hearsay evidence, the court determined that the trial judge should have admitted an out-of-court statement containing an admission as proof of the truth of the admission under section 60(3) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). However, since the witness affirmed the truth of the statement in court, this did not affect the outcome. The court also found that the trial judge appropriately exercised his discretion under section 38 in granting leave to cross-examine the witness, as the argument in the course of the trial demonstrated that section 192 was considered, even though the judge did not specifically refer to it. Finally, the court held that the sentencing judge gave an appropriate direction about the reliability of the witness under section 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), considering the trial counsel's acceptance that the witness was not criminally concerned in the events. The court rejected the appellant's argument that no alternative direction was proffered at trial or on appeal.

The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.