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

[2002] VSC 494

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. 18

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	12 November 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 494

---

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. Mr Dane has objected to the proposed re-examination of the present witness, Sergeant Beanland, touching upon a matter of procedure and identification on 21 September 2000.

1. Mr Dane has submitted to me that the evidence of the procedure and identification on that date in relation to the first accused by Ms Chadwick, effectively the first Hamada robbery at Bevics, properly came from the witness Chadwick, particularly at 4252-4253 in chief and in cross-examination at 4281-4284 and that, therefore, it is inappropriate for Mr Kidd to seek to re-examine the present witness Sergeant Beanland about the matter which has already been dealt with correctly and properly through the witness Chadwick.

1. That would be a persuasive submission, except that it was Mr Dane in cross-examination who introduced the topic to Sergeant Beanland.  Indeed, the Chadwick identification had not even been referred to in the evidence in chief of Sergeant Beanland.  It was introduced, in cross-examination, by Mr Dane, and in fact was the sole topic of Mr Dane's cross-examination.  In cross-examination it was Mr Dane who elicited through Sergeant Beanland that Ms Chadwick, after first going in for identification video purposes, came out and was "deep in thought".  He further put to Mr Beanland that Ms Chadwick did not give "a positive identification".

1. The only purpose of those questions by Mr Dane, and their only function so far as I can see, is to concentrate upon the state of mind of the identifying witness and the quality of the identification process.  The fact Ms Chadwick herself has given evidence of it and has been cross-examined on it is no ground for refusing this re-examination if, in fact, the cross-examination of this witness dealt with this matter, as it did, by traversing both of those points.  I consider it is illogical to submit that because Ms Chadwick has given evidence of it this witness cannot be re-examined on it when this witness was cross-examined upon it moments ago.

1. It seems to me it is directly responsive to cross-examination of Sergeant Beanland traversing the identifying witness being "deep in thought" and not making "a positive identification", that the witness Beanland can state what his notes state, consonant with what Ms Chadwick gave in evidence at 2452.  Of course, the actual identification in its progressive phases by Ms Chadwick was able to be cross-examined upon, as indeed Mr Dane ably did at 4281.

1. Accordingly, I consider the re-examination is permissible.

-----