R v Qaumi & Ors (No 20)

Objection is taken to part of paragraph 10 of a statement of a police officer called Jacob Cavallaro which involves an interaction between the accused Farhad Qaumi and that police officer. The statement sets out a conversation in part of which Farhad Qaumi is attributed to have said:

The evidence, it is submitted on behalf of Farhad Qaumi, is not relevant or if it is relevant its probative value is very slight in the context of the issues in the trial. It also has a capacity to cause prejudice.

The issue to which the Crown says the statement is relevant is the issue of whether Farhad Qaumi is in a leadership role in the criminal group as Crown will allege it is called the Brothers for Life at Blacktown.

I asked Senior Counsel for Farhad Qaumi whether or not there was any other evidence of his client’s leadership role and whether there was any dispute about the issue. He said there is not to be any dispute in relation to the issue that Farhad Qaumi was both a member of the group and also in a leadership role. However, he also told me that the only evidence on the issue is to come from ten “rollover” witnesses, as described.

In the course of the morning, I have heard the opening addresses of four of the five accused and what is plain and not at all surprising is that there will be a substantial attack on those rollover witnesses and even though it may not be specifically put to them that Farhad Qaumi was not in a leadership role, it is obvious that the accused, at least those who have to this point opened the case, will be making a significant and sustained attack on the credibility of those witnesses. So even though the matter may not be specifically in dispute, the Crown is entitled to establish by evidence the leadership role of Farhad Qaumi.

I do not perceive the prejudicial impact of that evidence to be particularly great. It certainly has the hallmarks of grandiosity and exaggeration but the words "my boys" does give rise to a possible inference of leadership. I think it has that relevance that the Crown contends for and that the probative value it has to that issue clearly outweighs any prejudicial effect that it may have.

I propose to allow that part of the evidence.