Salehi v The Queen

Salehi appealed against his conviction for murder. Salehi and Alikhani were jointly tried. The trial judge allowed the admission of out-of-court statements by Alikhani which implicated Salehi. The jury found Salehi guilty of murder. Salehi argued that the admission of the out-of-court statements by Alikhani was inadmissible, prejudicial, and of limited probative value. Salehi also argued that the trial judge should have excluded evidence from a forensic pathologist as it was speculative and inexpert. Salehi submitted that the failure to exclude this evidence deprived him of a fair trial. Salehi also submitted that evidence of motive to involve a co-offender as a method of reducing the penalty upon an admitted offender was not considered by the jury. Salehi argued that the unreliability of the translation of Alikhani's interviews meant that the trial was unfair and the verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory.
The court found that the out-of-court statements were not inadmissible and that the prejudicial effect of those statements was not so great as to require a severance of trials. The court held that the evidence of the forensic pathologist was admissible and that the trial judge was correct not to exclude it or to direct the jury as to its limited probative value. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in failing to particularise to the jury the evidence legally available against Salehi. The court held that Salehi's right to silence had not been infringed. The court held that the fresh evidence of unreliability of the translation did not render the whole of the evidence of the interview so unreliable as to be inadmissible.
The appeal was dismissed.