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

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1527 of 2001

Director of Public Prosecutions

Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts

Ruling No. 13

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	23 October 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 459

---

Criminal law and procedure - murder - evidence – re-examination – permissibility of re-examination on matters raised in cross-examination.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

I consider Mr Dane's objection is misconceived. Plainly if something was not led in chief and was not dealt with in cross-examination Mr Rapke would not be permitted to initiate fresh material in re-examination. However, if something is not dealt with in chief and is joined in issue in cross-examination, plainly it can be then dealt with in re-examination. That has here occurred on a number of occasions. One was the assaulting of the second accused at the time of his first arrest on 25 July 2000. That was raised in cross-examination and can be dealt with in re-examination. Likewise the inappropriate procedure, as suggested in cross-examination, of the allocation of Detective Sergeant Butterworth to the identification process of Ms Coffman on 27 October 1999. There are obviously a number of other instances of the same principle in law, namely that if something is joined in issue in cross-examination or is introduced in cross-examination it can be dealt with in re-examination.

I am quite sure that the prosecution is sensitive to not eliciting material that we have all sought to keep out of the trial, such as Mr Ghiller, and I think that can be left in the very able hands of counsel.

-------

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Director of Public Prosecutions brought proceedings against Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts, both charged with murder. The dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial, specifically whether the prosecution was permitted to re-examine a witness on matters that had been raised during cross-examination.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution's re-examination of a witness, who had been previously cross-examined by the defence, was permissible under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act 2008. The court had to consider whether the re-examination was confined to matters raised in cross-examination or whether it could delve into new matters not previously discussed during that phase of the trial.

The court held that the prosecution was not permitted to introduce new matters during re-examination that had not been raised in cross-examination. The court found that the re-examination in this case had exceeded the bounds of permissible questioning, as it sought to introduce new information that had not been previously disclosed during cross-examination. Consequently, the court ruled that the evidence obtained through the impermissible re-examination was inadmissible. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the established rules of evidence to ensure a fair trial and the proper administration of justice. The trial proceeded with the exclusion of the inadmissible evidence.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established