R v Prasad - [2015] NSWDC 344

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v PRASAD [2015] NSWDC 344
Hearing dates: 22, 23/09/2015
Decision date: 23 September 2015
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:
Oral admissions and text messages objected to not admitted.

Catchwords: Criminal - Evidence, admissions, admissibility of evidence of criminal conduct not charged.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited: Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590
R v Quach [2002] NSW CCA 519
R v Mostyn [2004] NSW CCA 97
Category: Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties: Crown
Ajeev Krishan Prasad - Accused
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Rowling – Crown
Mr Munro - Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown
O’Brien Solicitors - Accused

File Number(s): 2014/00037708

Judgment

Application to exclude evidence; see transcript p 5,6

HIS HONOUR: The accused, Ajeev Krishan Prasad is to be arraigned on a charge alleging that he supplied a prohibited drug namely methylamphetamine on 5 February 2014. The charge arises from the circumstances of a stop and search by police, particularly Senior Constable Janhke at 6.48pm on 5 February 2015 in Old South Head Road, Bellevue Hill.
Objection is taken by the accused to the admissibility of particular text messages received on his mobile phone over several days up until his arrest and part of the conversations had by the accused with the arresting police.
I do not propose to go through in chapter and verse the detail of the Crown case, but to summarise the situation as succinctly as I can, being under some pressure of time, as I understand the Crown case a car driven by the accused in which was also present Chee Hong, sitting in the passenger seat, was stopped for a random breath test and some inquiries to some defect in the car. A subsequent search of the car and the passenger has revealed Mr Hong to be in possession of a large sum of money, and to be in possession of, or appearing to have some immediate control over, a quantity of methylamphetamine which is the subject matter of the charge against the accused.
The total quantity of methylamphetamine found in separate places, including in an area within the rear passenger door, as I understand it is something in the order of 16.8 grams. It is important to note that it is that methylamphetamine as identified by the learned Crown Prosecutor in his opening remarks, found within the car either in the possession of Mr Hong or purportedly under his immediate control, which is the relevant methylamphetamine for which the accused has been charged with supplying.
In relation to this matter, the Crown case against the accused, Mr Prasad, is that he was involved in a joint criminal enterprise to supply the prohibited drug. As I would understand the Crown case, although I have not gone into the detail of the legal basis for the Crown's case against the accused.
Whilst it may appear ostensibly on the evidence that Mr Hong had the relevant drugs in…

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 Prasad

Details

AGLC: R v Prasad [2015] NSWDC 344
Case: [2015] NSWDC 344
Decision Date: 23 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Prasad was before the court, where the defendant was charged with various criminal offences. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically oral admissions made by the defendant and text messages exchanged between the defendant and another individual. The court had to decide whether these pieces of evidence were admissible in the trial, considering the legal principles and rules of evidence applicable to such circumstances.

The legal issues that the court needed to address involved the admissibility of the defendant's oral admissions and text messages. The prosecution argued that these pieces of evidence were relevant and could be admitted to prove the defendant's guilt. However, the defence objected to the admissibility of this evidence, contending that it was not relevant to the charges and could potentially prejudice the jury against the defendant. The court had to carefully consider the principles of relevance, probative value, and the potential for unfair prejudice when determining the admissibility of this evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the nature of the evidence in question and its potential impact on the trial. The court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that evidence is both relevant and probative to the charges, while also considering the potential for unfair prejudice. After careful consideration, the court ruled that the oral admissions and text messages were not admissible, as they did not meet the necessary criteria for admissibility under the rules of evidence. The court was satisfied that admitting this evidence would not assist in proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the potential for unfair prejudice outweighed any probative value the evidence may have had.

As a result of the court's ruling, the oral admissions and text messages in question were not admitted as evidence in the trial. This decision ensured that the trial proceeded in a fair and just manner, with only relevant and probative evidence being considered by the jury. The final orders of the court reflected this decision, with the admissibility of the contested evidence being clearly outlined.

Orders

Orders of the court

Oral admissions and text messages objected to not admitted.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v PRASAD [2015] NSWDC 344
Hearing dates:	22, 23/09/2015
Decision date:	23 September 2015
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge S Norrish QC
Decision:	Oral admissions and text messages objected to not admitted.
Catchwords:	Criminal - Evidence, admissions, admissibility of evidence of criminal conduct not charged.
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Harriman v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 590 R v Quach [2002] NSW CCA 519 R v Mostyn [2004] NSW CCA 97
Category:	Consequential orders (other than Costs)
Parties:	Crown Ajeev Krishan Prasad - Accused
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Rowling – Crown Mr Munro - Accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions – Crown O’Brien Solicitors - Accused
File Number(s):	2014/00037708