R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen

[2011] NSWSC 1044

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1044
Hearing dates:	26 May 2011
Decision date:	26 May 2011
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	James J
Decision:	I consider that all of the documents the admissibility of which was disputed, which I ruled should be admitted, are relevant and of substantial probative force
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Regina, Mark William Standen
Representation:	T Game SC, H Dhanji SC, S Buchen (Crown) M Ierace SC, G Farmer (Accused) Commonwealth DPP (Crown) Gordon Elliot, Elliot Lawyers (Accused)
File Number(s):	2009/8922

Judgment (on Crime Commission documents)

1. HIS HONOUR: This short supplementary judgment is to be read with the rulings and reasons given by me at pages 2333 to 2336 of the transcript.

1. I consider that all of the documents the admissibility of which was disputed, which I ruled should be admitted, are relevant and of substantial probative force as being capable of showing one or more of the following:

Kinch's history of criminality particularly in the importing and trafficking of illicit drugs and that this history was known to the accused; the frequency of contacts between the accused and Kinch in 2003 - 2004; that the relationship between the accused and Kinch in 2003 - 2004 developed far beyond the usual handler-informer relationship; that the accused made representations in favour of Kinch stating matters more favourably to Kinch than was warranted; the beginnings of an improper relationship between the accused and Kinch rendering it more probable that a fully corrupt relationship was in existence during the period alleged in the indictment; matters which can be linked to other matters which occurred during the alleged conspiracy; and that after Kinch left Australia in February 2004 he was still involved in the trafficking and distribution of drugs.

1. I do not consider that, in the case of any of the documents there was any danger, if the document was admitted, of unfair prejudice to the accused or of collateral issues arising or of procedural unfairness to the accused or any likelihood that the weight which should be given to the document could be significantly affected by other records of the Commission which have not been retrieved.

**********

Decision last updated: 08 September 2011