Director of Public Prosecutions v Woolf (Ruling No 4)

[2013] VCC 1110

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Revised
Not Restricted
Suitable for Publication

Case No. CR-12-02001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

URIEL WOOLF

---

JUDGE:	HER HONOUR JUDGE CANNON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 August 2013
DATE OF RULING:	30 August 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Woolf (Ruling No 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 1110

REASONS FOR RULING
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:             RULING – Timing of tendency argument prior to conduct of Special Hearing

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr N.B. Batten	Mr C. Hyland Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T. Danos	PICA Criminal Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1       Having heard from Mr Batten and Mr Danos, it is my view that the tendency argument should take place at this stage.

2       There is an interlocutory appeal pending in the Court of Appeal in relation to cross-examination of the complainant, and whilst the outcome of that, of course, is unknown, even if the special hearing were to proceed at a later time with inclusion of that cross-examination, and even if I were to rule in favour of the Crown, the Defence are at no disadvantage in terms of asking me to revisit any ruling which is in the Crown’s favour concerning tendency, pointing to any aspects of unreliability that they say have arisen because of the special hearing.

3       In those circumstances, I am of the view that it is in the interests of justice to deal with this question of tendency, especially in view of the fact that it may be that, having heard the argument and having made the ruling in relation to tendency, one or other of the parties wishes that also to be the subject of an interlocutory appeal.

4       It is best that all of these matters be dealt with at a stage before the special hearing takes place, in my view, so as to avoid fragmentation of the proceedings, and I cannot see that there is any negative aspect to this from the defence’s point of view, as even if I rule in favour of the Crown, they are not precluded from asking me to revisit the matter in the event that something transpires in the course of the special hearing which would give cause for concern on their part.

- - -