NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 163 A Crim R 526 199 FLR 342
New South Wales Supreme Court
CITATION : Regina v Lodhi [2006] NSWSC 648
JUDGMENT DATE : 11 May 2006
JUDGMENT OF : Whealy J at 1
DECISION : I am satisfied that there is no basis under ss 135 or 137 of the Evidence Act to exclude the evidence of the representations, provided the Crown does not lead the evidence relating to the name "Faheem".
CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - admissions by accused: s 81 Evidence Act (NSW) 1995 - exception to hearsay rule (s 65(1) and 65(2)(c) Evidence Act) - availability of witness - evidence admissible for non-hearsay purpose - s 136 Evidence Act - Limitation order
LEGISLATION CITED : Criminal Code Act (Commonwealth) 1995 Evidence Act 1995
Cross on Evidence (6th Australian Edition) Regina v Ward, Andrews & Broadley (English Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) 20 December 2000) R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442 CASES CITED : R v Houghton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426 R v Ambrosoli [2002] 55 NSWLR 603 R v Serratore (1999) 48 NSWLR 101 at 108 R v Parkes [2003] 147 A Crim R 450 at 459
PARTIES : Regina v Faheem Khalid Lodhi
FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2005/1094
COUNSEL : Mr R Maidment SC; Mr G. Bellew - Crown Mr P. Lahey - Accused
SOLICITORS : DPP (Commonwealth) - Crown Michael Doughty - Accused
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL LIST
WHEALY J
THURSDAY 11 May 2006
2005/1094 - REGINA v Faheem Khalid LODHI
JUDGMENT - Application on behalf of the accused to exclude "admissions" made by the accused to Messrs Ahmad and Altaf.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate