R v Nehme; R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema (No 2)

The appellants were charged with the murder of two men. During their electronically recorded interviews with police, the appellants were visibly injured. At trial, the trial judge admitted the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews despite the appellants’ objection. The appellants were convicted of murder. The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, arguing that the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews was unfairly prejudicial and should have been excluded. The appellants submitted that the jury would be unduly influenced by their visible injuries and unable to objectively assess their demeanour and credibility. The Crown submitted that the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews was relevant and probative in assessing the appellants’ demeanour and credibility. The court was required to determine whether the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews was unfairly prejudicial. The court noted that the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews was relevant and probative in assessing the appellants’ demeanour and credibility. The court held that the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews was not unfairly prejudicial. The court found that the jury could assess the appellants’ demeanour and credibility with the assistance of the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews. The court held that the visual aspect of the electronically recorded interviews was admissible, but a robust direction should be given to the jury to ensure they could objectively assess the appellants’ demeanour and credibility. The appeal was dismissed. The appellants’ convictions were upheld.