Rex v Naramsin Askarou

The matter of Rex v Naramsin Askarou involved the defendant, Naramsin Askarou, who was charged with serious criminal offences. The case reached the court as a pre-trial motion, where the central issue was the unavailability of witnesses who were overseas. The Crown sought to introduce evidence from these witnesses, but their physical presence in court was not possible. The legal dispute centred on whether the Crown had taken all reasonable steps to secure the attendance of these witnesses, as required by section 63 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The court was required to determine the factors that should be considered when a witness is overseas in another country.

The court examined the steps taken by the Crown to locate and secure the attendance of the witnesses. It considered the application of section 63 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) and the criteria for determining the unavailability of witnesses who reside overseas. The court also evaluated the adequacy of the efforts made by the Crown to ensure that these witnesses were available for the trial. It scrutinised whether the Crown had exhausted all possible means to bring the witnesses to Australia, taking into account the practical and legal challenges posed by international borders and legal systems. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Crown had not demonstrated that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the attendance of the witnesses.

The court found that the Crown had not sufficiently demonstrated that all reasonable steps had been taken to secure the attendance of the witnesses. Consequently, the Crown’s Notice of Motion was dismissed. The decision underscored the importance of the Crown proving, to the satisfaction of the court, that it had made every reasonable effort to secure the presence of overseas witnesses. This ruling highlights the stringent requirements for admitting evidence from unavailable witnesses and the necessity for thorough documentation and justification of the steps taken to secure their attendance. The outcome of this case reinforces the importance of compliance with statutory provisions and the need for comprehensive evidence of efforts to obtain witness attendance when dealing with international witnesses.