The Court held that evidence of a threatening phone call by an unidentified caller was admissible against all three co-accused in a joint murder trial where it was reasonably open to find that the first accused (Raad) made the call before the shooting and in furtherance of a common purpose. However, the Court held (in obiter) that s 88's requirement to identify 'a particular person' as the maker of an admission is not a prerequisite for admissibility under the s 87 co-conspirator pathway — an unidentified co-venturer's representation may in principle be attributed to a party if the common purpose and furtherance elements are established — but left this as an unresolved question given no authoritative case was found. The Prosecutor was not permitted to argue to the jury the alternative basis that someone other than Raad made the call, as this would cause unfair prejudice to the co-accused, procedural unfairness (the alternative was not put to the relevant witness), and unwarranted jury confusion, with the evidence limited under s 136.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.