R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema (No 2)

[2023] NSWSC 1660

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1660

Hearing dates:

23 November 2023

Date of orders:

23 November 2023

Decision date:

23 November 2023

Jurisdiction:

Common Law

Before:

McNaughton J

Decision:

In relation to the accused Rizk, the Court makes the following order:

(1) The Pennant Hills bladed weapon and still photograph of the Pennant Hills bladed weapon are admissible

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – admissibility of evidence – bladed weapon and photograph of bladed weapon – evidence objected to by co-accused – s 135 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) – probative value not substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial – evidence admissible against the accused Rizk

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 135

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Rex (Crown)
Lisa Anne Price (Accused)
Bilal Rahim (Accused)
Sherene Rizk (Accused)
Viliami Bui Taufahema (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
K Ratcliffe (Crown)
T Quilter (Lisa Anne Price)
M Hobart SC (Bilal Rahim)
N Carroll (Sherene Rizk)
A Evers (Viliami Bui Taufahema)

Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Sydney Side Lawyers (Lisa Anne Price)
Australian Criminal & Family Lawyers (Bilal Rahim)
Malouf Criminal Lawyers (Sherene Rizk)
Criminal Law Group (Viliami Bui Taufahema)

File Number(s):

2019/00399270, 2019/00388028, 2019/00397014, 2019/00388190

Publication restriction:

No publication until the conclusion of the trial of Joseph Nehme

ex tempore judgment (revised)

1. Earlier this week I ruled on the admissibility of evidence of the finding of a bladed weapon at the Pennant Hills property, in the case of the accused Rizk, over the objection of the accused Taufahema, under s 135 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). [1]

   1. R v Price; R v Rahim; R v Rizk; R v Taufahema [2023] NSWSC 1659.

2. I ruled that the evidence was admissible. That evidence was in the form of short video recordings of the finding of the weapon by police executing a search warrant at the Pennant Hills property.

3. After that ruling, the Crown indicated that it wished to tender the item itself, together with a still photograph. Those items were tendered before me on the voir dire. It was clarified with the accused Rizk's counsel that she had no objection to those items per se, only that she wished to limit any prejudice to the accused Taufahema. Subsequently, only the accused Taufahema was objecting, again on the basis of s 135 of the Evidence Act.

4. Having examined the item, I indicated yesterday that I would admit the evidence on the same basis as my previous ruling in relation to the recording. If anything, the probative value is increased by the physical item being available and the prejudice, if any, is decreased as the item is lighter than it appears, in my view. The still photograph is clearly a convenient way to view the evidence. Again, it will be made clear at every opportunity that this is only admissible against the accused Rizk.

**********

Endnote