Director of Public Prosecutions v Hills (Ruling No 7)

[2010] VSC 595

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1491 of 2009

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

KAREN HILLS
N.C.
BRODIE COOPER
R.A.C.

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 November 2010
DATE OF RULING:	3 November 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Hills & Ors (Ruling No 7)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 595

---

CRIMINAL TRIAL – Evidence – Re-examination by prosecutor.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	Mr G. Horgan SC and Ms E. Ruddle	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Karen Hills	Ms C. Randazzo SC and Mr J. Desmond	Robert Stary Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Accused NC	Mr S. Bayles	Robert Stary Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Accused Cooper	Mr W.E. Stuart	James Dousley & Associates
For the Accused RAC	Mr I. Polak	Dowling McGregor

HIS HONOUR:

1. An issue has arisen as to whether I should permit Mr Horgan in re-examination to show to the witness Ms Meulenbrock a CCTV footage taken from a Liberty service station on the corner of Donald Street, the purpose of that re-examination being to identify a video which the witness has said she was shown in the course of cross-examination by Ms Randazzo who appears for Karen Hills.

1. Clearly, the re-examination is relevant.  Ms Meulenbrock's evidence was attacked vigorously on the basis that she had been fed information before and during the record of interview which she had with the police on 23 December, in which implicated Ms Hills as one of the offenders, involved in the incidents with which this case is concerned.

1. Further, it would seem to me that the issue as to whether the police wrongfully influenced Ms Meulenbrock in her evidence will not cease with the evidence of Ms Meulenbrock, but will also continue with the evidence of the police.  Thus, the showing of the video addresses not only a relevant issue but indeed an issue which was central to the cross-examination.

1. Mr Desmond has submitted that there is some collateral prejudice, which may be occasioned to his client should the jury impermissibly seek to compare one of the vehicles with his client's vehicle.  Firstly, in my view, having seen the video, such a risk is low, if not minimal.  Mr Horgan is well acquainted with the principle that a jury cannot be invited to draw a comparison from a video, particularly of this type, with an item or a person which is the subject of the case.  In my view, the risk is so slight that it is heavily outweighed by the probative value and the relevance of the re-examination which is to be undertaken by Mr Horgan.

1. I must say, at this stage I would not be disposed to give a caution direction to the jury in relation to the concern of Mr Desmond, because I believe that that concern, whilst Mr Desmond might feel it, is not one which has any degree of reality about it.  I shall however certainly revisit the matter before final address if counsel wishes to raise it with me.

1. However, in my view, the re-examination being relevant in the way I have just described, Mr Horgan should be permitted to show the video to the witness and simply ask the witness whether she identifies that video as a video that was shown to her on 23 December.