R v Saliba - [2025] NSWSC 61

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Saliba [2025] NSWSC 61
Hearing dates: 18 December 2024; 6 February 2025; 17 February 2025
Date of orders: 17 February 2025
Decision date: 20 February 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Yehia J
Decision:
Multiple rulings made

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – murder – various evidentiary rulings – category of evidence relating to the asserted “familiarity and affinity” of the accused with the murder weapon – prejudicial nature of the evidence – hearsay evidence of the deceased – whether the evidence is based on representations made by the accused – whether the representations involve admissions – second-hand hearsay – consideration of the preconditions to admission of evidence under s 65 – whether the evidence of debts owed to the accused are relevant – whether probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 55, 62, 65, 66A, 82, 90, 135, 137

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Dominic Saliba (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
R Khalilizadeh (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hugo Law Group (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2022/00386498
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Dominic Saliba (“the accused/applicant”) has pleaded not guilty to one count of murder. His trial is listed to commence on 10 March 2025. By way of Notice of Motion filed on 9 December 2024, the accused notified objections to several pieces of evidence. The pre-trial arguments commenced before me on 18 December 2024. The proceedings were adjourned to 6 February 2025 for further argument. On that date, the proceedings were again adjourned for further legal argument on 17 February 2025.
At the conclusion of the hearing on 17 February 2025 I announced my rulings on each objection, with a view to providing a written judgment on 20 February 2025. What follows are the reasons for the rulings announced on 17 February 2025.
The matter is listed for an application that the trial be heard by judge alone on 27 February 2025. Considering the fast-approaching hearing date and the trial date of 10 March 2025, it was necessary to provide the parties with rulings and a judgment expeditiously. I have therefore endeavoured to provide this judgment, without delay, following the hearing of final submissions on the pre-trial issues.

The Crown Case

The Crown Case is set out in an Amended Crown Case Statement. The accused was 20 years old in December 2022. The deceased is his first cousin. He was 18 years old in December 2022. The accused and the deceased grew up together as part of an extended family group. The accused resided at an address in Bomaderry. His parents resided there on a part-time basis. Also residing at the premises were Matthew McAnally, Jaemon Elfverson and Layla McKinley.
On the evening of 9 December 2022, the accused, the deceased, Mr Elfverson, and Mr McAnally were in the garage of the accused’s house. Ms McKinley was in the accused’s bedroom. Also at the premises…

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 Saliba

Details

AGLC: R v Saliba [2025] NSWSC 61
Case: [2025] NSWSC 61
Decision Date: 20 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Saliba involved a trial for murder, with the central issue being the admissibility of certain pieces of evidence. The trial was conducted in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and the accused was Saliba. The court was required to make several rulings on the admissibility of evidence, particularly concerning the relationship between the accused and the murder weapon, as well as hearsay evidence related to the deceased's statements.

The primary legal issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, which included hearsay statements made by the deceased about the accused's familiarity with the murder weapon, was admissible. The court had to consider whether these statements amounted to admissions and whether they were based on representations made by the accused. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The court found that the hearsay evidence was indeed based on representations made by the accused and constituted admissions. However, the court also found that the probative value of the evidence was significantly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence was inadmissible. Furthermore, the court found that the evidence of debts owed to the accused was not relevant to the case and, therefore, was also inadmissible. The court concluded that the prejudicial effect of the evidence was too great and could potentially mislead the jury.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence in question, including the hearsay evidence of the deceased and the evidence of debts owed to the accused, were not admissible. This decision was based on the court's finding that the probative value of the evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The court's ruling ensured that the trial would proceed without the potentially misleading and prejudicial evidence.

Orders