R v Dirani (No 8)

In this criminal case, the defendant, Dirani, was being prosecuted for a range of offences related to drug trafficking. The prosecution sought to introduce a recording of a conversation between two co-conspirators as evidence. The defence objected on the grounds that the conversation was irrelevant and not probative of any fact in issue. The defence counsel requested that the admissibility of the evidence be determined without the use of a transcript, as the conversation was played multiple times during the trial. The court had to decide whether the recording was relevant and, if so, whether it could be considered without the aid of a transcript.

The court considered the relevance of the evidence and the difficulties in determining what was said in the recording. The court noted that the conversation was between two co-conspirators and not directly involving the defendant. The court held that the conversation was not relevant to the charges against the defendant, as it did not provide any evidence of the defendant's involvement in the alleged offences. The court also found that it was not possible to determine what was said in the recording without the aid of a transcript, and therefore the evidence was inadmissible. The court held that the evidence was not relevant and should be excluded from the trial.

The court excluded the evidence of the conversation between the two co-conspirators. The court found that the evidence was not relevant to the charges against the defendant and could not be considered without the aid of a transcript. The court held that the evidence was inadmissible and should not be considered by the jury in determining the defendant's guilt or innocence. The court did not make any further orders in relation to the evidence.