Sharam Khamisi v The Queen

The matter of Sharam Khamisi versus The Queen was heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Khamisi, was convicted of aggravated people smuggling, a crime which involves the facilitation of the illegal entry of non-citizens into Australia. Khamisi appealed against his conviction, arguing that the trial judge erred in admitting evidence of his oral admission to police that he worked with people smugglers. Specifically, Khamisi contended that the admission was unfairly obtained and its admission was prejudicial.

The legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge made an error in not excluding the evidence of the appellant’s oral admission under section 90 of the Evidence Act 2008, which allows the court to exclude evidence if its admission would be unfair. The court had to consider whether the circumstances under which the admission was obtained rendered it unfair to admit, and if the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value.

The High Court held that there was no error in the trial judge's decision to admit the evidence. The court found that the evidence was properly obtained and that its probative value substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. The court emphasised that the evidence played a crucial role in establishing the appellant's involvement in the people smuggling activities.