R v Al Batat (No 19) - [2020] NSWSC 1297

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Al Batat & Ors (No 19) [2020] NSWSC 1297
Hearing dates: 21 September 2020
Date of orders: 22 September 2020
Decision date: 24 September 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: HAMILL J
Decision:
The evidence of Mr Bayliss’s false denials of his possession of methylamphetamine are inadmissible.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - credibility evidence - evidence of false denial of possession of drug - where accused denied gun supply in the same interview - whether leave required - where accused admits possession of drug - whether prior inconsistent statement - whether evidence could substantially affect assessment of credibility - probative value of evidence - danger of unfair prejudice - brazen lies - caught red handed - jury leaping to conclusion of guilt - evidence receiving undue weight - jury losing focus on evidence tendered to prove guilt - possible directions - axiom that juries obey directions not holy writ - evidence excluded

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 29
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 101A, 108A, 108B, 137

Cases Cited:
Azzi v R [2013] NSWCCA 249
Gilbert v The Queen (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
R v Adams (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1359
R v Al Batat & Ors (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 967
R v Al Batat & Ors (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1061
R v Al Batat & Ors (No 12) [2020] NSWSC 1129
R v Simmons; R v Moore (No 4) [2015] NSWSC 259

Texts Cited:
Stephen Odgers, “Uniform Evidence Law” (15th Edition, Lawbook Co, 2020)

Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Abdallah Hassan Al Batat
Ying Cheng Luo
Ian Fan
Jaiyu Liu
Jacob Blake Bayliss
Nai An Li
Representation:
Counsel:
P Hogan (Crown)
B Rigg SC (Al Batat)
R Webb (Luo)
T Quilter (Fan)
N Carroll (Liu)
A Norrie (Bayliss)
D Carroll (Li)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the NSW DPP (Crown)
TS Law Firm (Al Batat)
Voros Lawyers (Luo)
Zahr & Partners (Fan)
George Sten & Co (Liu)
Ross Hill Lawyers (Bayliss)
Younes & Espiner (Li)

File Number(s): 2018/214586 (Al Batat)
2017/170943 (Luo)
2017/168582 (Fan)
2017/168476 (Liu)
2017/321618 (Bayliss)
2018/214894 (Li)
Publication restriction: No publication until conclusion of trial

Judgment

On 14 August 2020, I delivered a judgment making various evidentiary rulings in the case of Jacob Bayliss, who is on trial with five co-accused: R v Al Batat & Ors (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 1061. On 22 September 2020, I made a ruling excluding certain questions and answers in a recorded interview between Mr Bayliss and investigators dated 24 October 2017. [1] I indicated I would give reasons for that ruling as soon as possible and these are those reasons.
1. Transcript (“T”), 22/09/2020, p 941.
This judgment should be read in conjunction with the earlier judgment in R v Al Batat & Ors (No 3). The earlier judgment dealt with a number of diverse objections made on Mr Bayliss’s behalf. Relevant to the present…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Al Batat (No 19)

Details

AGLC: R v Al Batat (No 19) [2020] NSWSC 1297
Case: [2020] NSWSC 1297
Decision Date: 24 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Al Batat (No 19) was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The appellant, Al Batat, appealed against his conviction and sentence for various drug-related offences. The dispute centred around the admissibility of evidence of prior inconsistent statements made by the appellant during police interviews. Specifically, the court had to decide whether evidence of the appellant's false denial of drug possession and gun supply could be admitted as credibility evidence under s 192 of the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic).

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of the appellant's prior inconsistent statements. The appellant argued that the evidence was inadmissible as it did not meet the criteria for prior inconsistent statements under s 192 of the Evidence Act, as it was not relevant to the issue of his possession of drugs and was more prejudicial than probative. The prosecution contended that the evidence was relevant to the appellant's credibility and could assist the jury in assessing his truthfulness. The court had to balance the probative value of the evidence against the risk of unfair prejudice to the appellant.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred in admitting the evidence of the appellant's prior inconsistent statements. The court found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for admissibility under s 192 of the Evidence Act. The court noted that the evidence of the appellant's false denial of drug possession and gun supply was not relevant to the issue of his possession of drugs and was more prejudicial than probative. The court further found that the evidence could have substantially affected the assessment of the appellant's credibility and could have led the jury to leap to a conclusion of guilt. The court held that the evidence should have been excluded, and the conviction and sentence were quashed and a retrial ordered.

Orders