DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd

[2001] VSC 108

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1484 of 2000

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

ESSO AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Ruling No. 10

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	11 April 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Esso Australia Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 108

---

Re-examination – Ambit of.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	R. Richter QC with N. Clelland	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	M. Titshall QC With M. Hennessy	Middletons Moore & Bevins

____________________________

Ruling No. 10

HIS HONOUR:

1. I am against the application.  I consider that the proposed further re-examination, that is to say, the elicitation that at the Royal Commission over five days the representatives of the accused company did not put this item to the witness, is a mere construct.  To that extent, it is not a matter which advances the credit of the witness, in my view, in any significant way.  After all, the material was in the statements of the two witnesses from September and November 1999 respectively and that was data of an evidentiary sort, that is to say of observations, and was in the hands of the witness.  This question of puttage at the Royal Commission is but a construct.

1. Secondly, I think it has the potential, albeit not great, of a tendency to reverse the onus of proof.  Esso does not have to advance anything and I think, accordingly, it is inappropriate to permit the sought-for re-examination.  Accordingly I refuse it.

---