Director of Public Prosecutions v Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts

[2002] VSC 495

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1527 of 2001

Director of Public Prosecutions

v

Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts

Ruling No.19

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	13 November 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 495

---

Criminal law and procedure –

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr J.W. Rapke QC with Mr P.B. Kidd and Mr J.J. Serong	OPP
For the accused Debs	Mr P.C. Dane QC with Mr G. Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid
For the accused Roberts	Mr I.D. Hill QC with Ms S.K. Dawes	Lethbridges
For the ABC, 3AW, and Channels 7, 9 and 10	Mr Quill	Corrs Chambers Westgarth

HIS HONOUR:

1. In the exercise of discretion I exclude the evidence which is sought to be led by the prosecution that following his police interview on 25 July 2000 the accused, Mr Debs, was asked by Detective Senior Sergeant Collins "about his willingness to participate in an identification parade", and that Mr Debs "refused to go in a parade".

1. I will give my full reasons both as to law and discretion in the next day or two, that is, this week.

1. However, as Mr Dane is about to cross-examine the Detective Inspector, as he now is, I say this, which will be part of my reasons.  Whilst the global issue of police framing, as asserted by the first accused, could found the admission of the sought for but refused material, there is no challenge by the defence of Mr Debs to the propriety or appropriateness of the choice of procedure as to identification by Ms Chadwick by video on 21 September 2000.  There is of course a challenge by the defence to the accuracy and reliability of her identification in fact, but there is no challenge as to the propriety or appropriateness of the choice of the procedure, being by video rather than in person.

1. Mr Dane's cross-examination, as he has already clearly stated, will be sensitive to avoid any traverse or implication that the choice of procedure was improper or inappropriate.

1. I should add the case I had in mind this morning was not Muto & Eastey but rather Hartwick, 20 December 1995, Court of Appeal, unreported, which I will include in my reasons.

-----