DPP and Taylor

[2014] VCC 1800

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

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Case No. CR-14-00903

DPP	Applicant
v
Stephen Taylor	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Cannon
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 October 2014
DATE OF RULING:	14 October 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP and Taylor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014 VCC 1800

REASONS FOR RULING
---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW

Catchwords: Ruling – Crown Application pursuant to s.32C Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958

Legislation Cited: Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1958

Ruling:  Application granted

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr N. Batten	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Ms J. Sutherland	Tony Hargreaves and Partners

HER HONOUR:

1 Having heard from counsel in respect of Crown applications for leave to issue subpoena's pursuant to s.32C Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1958 and having considered the matters that are pertinent to such applications, I am satisfied for the reasons advanced by Mr Batten on behalf of the Crown that, on the balance of probabilities, the evidence which is sought to be produced will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence to be produced, or perhaps adduced by the party seeking leave, have substantial probative value to a fact in issue.

2       The essential fact in issue in this trial is the reliability of the complainant, and I understand that that is an issue which the Crown, in fairness, seeks to properly explore. Defence also wishes to have access to the material.  Having heard from Mr Batten as to the particular circumstances of this matter, and having factored in, of course, the complainant's apparent attitude to the matter, notwithstanding that, I am satisfied that there is a need to ensure that the accused is able to make a full defence and that the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of the communications and protecting the complainant from harm, is substantially outweighed by the public interest in admitting into evidence, evidence of substantial probative value.

3       I have not seen the documents and, of course, there has to be an application if the matter proceeds to trial before the trial judge concerning the adduction of any information obtained from the documents produced.  But on the basis of what I presently know, it seems that there is documentation in existence which would have the potential to significantly impact the fact in issue in this case, and therefore, I will allow the application.

4       I should also add that it would appear that other evidence of similar or greater value concerning the matters to which the protected evidence relates is not available.