DPP and DNM

[2013] VCC 2196

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA  Revised
Not Restricted
 Suitable for Publication

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Case No. CR- 12-00512

Director of Public Prosecutions

v

DNM

---

JUDGE:	CANNON
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 May 2013
DATE OF RULING:	6 May 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP and DNM
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VCC 2196

REASONS FOR RULING 6 May 2015
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords:             Ruling – Probative value of CCTV footage – Means of adducing this evidence

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K. Churchill	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Kelly	Robert Stary Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

1       On balance I'm of the view that the evidence is relevant and the topic has been opened by defence by taking the complainant to particular footage on that particular day with the point being made to the jury, and Mr Kelly has been quite properly candid about this, that they may well have been happy to be in each other's company, or words to that effect.  But in those circumstances I would have thought that it is appropriate for the prosecution to then adduce evidence of footage of the accused's behaviour outside the toilet.

2       Even having considered s.137, in my view, the evidence of the accused being outside the toilet does have probative value.  It's a matter for the jury to give it the weight that they see fit; and I would give limited leave in re-examination to have Ms Churchill ask the complainant about her recollection as to whether she went to the toilet on the day- perhaps a question of that nature, with a view to introducing the footage through this witness.  But if she's not able to recall tha, it may be it's more appropriate to adduce that evidence through another witness such as the person who gathered the footage or, by agreement, the police informant.