DPP v Weiss

[2002] VSC 136

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1464 of 2001

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

BOHDAN WEISS

---
Ruling No. 3 (3rd Trial)

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	4 April 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bohdan Weiss
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 136

---

Criminal law and procedure – trial – murder – cross-examination of accused – permissible question.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr P. Faris QC	OPP
For the Accused	Mr C. Lovitt QC	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

1. I consider I should permit the question to be put to Mr Weiss in cross-examination.  The Crown has instructions upon the matter, and indeed there has been evidence in another trial on the matter, so the Crown has material in its hands it wishes to put to Mr Weiss.

1. As I said to Mr Lovitt in discussion, I certainly would not let this trial go down the path of either a holistic attack upon Mr Weiss's character or a gratuitous attack upon it either.  This seems to me to be neither of those matters.  It is relevant to matters joined in issue:  it is put by the defence, in order to seek to undermine the confession which Ms Horstead says she received from Mr Weiss on the night of 24 November 1994, that she voluntarily stayed with him and indeed fought to keep him, and this material can go to the circumstances of their difference of opinion in relation to Renee; that is to say, why there was a difference of opinion.  That is not an unimportant matter, although by no means the most important matter in this trial.  The answer, of course, is the evidence, not the question, and the jury will act according to the normal rules of evidence.

1. I do not consider the question is inherently prejudicial in the context of this trial, and I do not consider the question should be precluded on grounds of possible prejudice.

1. Accordingly I consider the question is permissible to be put.

--------