DPP v Ivanovic
[2003] VSC 394
•19 September 2003
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted | |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 1457 of 2002
| DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS |
| v |
| THOMAS IVANOVIC |
Ruling No. 7
---
JUDGE: | Cummins J | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 19 September 2003 | |
DATE OF RULING: | 19 September 2003 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | DPP v Ivanovic | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2003] VSC 394 | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Evidence – Recording of existence or non-existence of hearsay statements itself inadmissible.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director | Mr W. Morgan-Payler Q.C. | Office of Public Prosecutions |
| For the Accused | Mr R. Richter Q.C. and Mr C. Rozencwajg | Theo Magazis |
HIS HONOUR:
I uphold Mr Richter's objection.
I have excluded statements made a year or months before 8 January 2002, on the basis that they are hearsay and do not come within the principle of Walton v The Queen.
Like reasoning applies to Mr Morgan-Payler's application. The fact that the statement or lack of statement was reduced to writing or not reduced to writing, makes no difference at all. That is merely mechanical. What is being sought to be led is the verbal matter which is impermissible for the reasons I gave in Ruling No. 5. The fact that the verbal matter, or the lack of verbal matter, a year before had been reduced to writing or not reduced to writing is inconsequential.
I did permit two things. I permitted contemporaneous statements by the accused of fear to go in because they were contemporaneous not historical; and I permitted historical demeanour of the accused of fear to go in because it was behavioural, not verbal. That is what I have permitted. I consider accordingly that same logic applies to Mr Morgan-Payler's application, which I refuse. I uphold Mr Richter's objection.
0
0
0