Legal Research
Cases
R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2)

R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2)

Case [2022] NSWSC 211 3 March 2022

Admissibility of Evidence

Hearsay Evidence

Jurisdiction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 211
Hearing dates: 28 February 2022, 1 and 2 March 2022
Date of orders: 3 March 2022
Decision date: 03 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1. See reasons, and the schedule annexed to this judgment as to admissibility of hearsay evidence
2. Evidence as to [redacted] is excluded

Catchwords:
CRIME – trial – pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility of disputed evidence – hearsay evidence

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Azizi v The Queen [2012] VSCA 205
Harris v The Queen [2005] NSWCCA 432; (2005) 158 A Crim R 454
Prasad v R [2020] NSWCCA 349
R v BD (1997) 94 A Crim R 131
R v Camelo-Gomez [2022] NSWSC 136
R v Grogan & Slacke (No 1) [2013] NSWSC 1191
R v Kuzmanovic [2005] NSWSC 771
R v Ryan [2020] NSWSC 1394
R v Singh (No 4) [2021] NSWSC 75
R v Tarantino [2019] NSWSC 939
R v Toki (No. 3) [2000] NSWSC 999
Sio v The Queen [2016] HCA 32; 259 CLR 47
Williams v The Queen [2000] FCA 1868; (2000) 119 A Crim R 490

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Regina
Isabela Carolina Camelo-Gomez
Representation:
Counsel:
D Scully & G Steedman (Crown)
B Rigg SC & C Wasley (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Legal Aid (NSW) (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/298987
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HER HONOUR: The accused, Isabela Camelo-Gomez, born Megan Jones, was arraigned before me on 14 February 2022 on an indictment charging her with a single count of murder contrary to s 18(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Prior to the commencement of her trial for that charge, the Court is asked to determine the question of the admissibility of a number of pieces of disputed evidence.
The general background and history of these proceedings can be found in R v Camelo-Gomez [2022] NSWSC 136, a decision dealing with an application for a permanent stay of the prosecution. It is not proposed to repeat the detail here given of the case alleged against the accused.
In this judgment, consideration is given, and rulings made, with respect to two of the four discrete issues over which the parties are in dispute. They are:

The admissibility of hearsay statements; and

The admissibility of evidence of [redacted] in September 2001.

The remaining matters in dispute will be dealt with in separate reasons. They are:

The admissibility of evidence of telephone calls made by the accused; and

The admissibility of expert evidence as to injuries sustained by the accused in November 2001.

The Crown Case Broadly

Mrs Irene Jones was murdered by ligature strangulation and stabbing on the late evening of 2 November 2001, at her home in Lansvale. The Crown alleges that the accused, the only child of Mrs Jones, is her murderer.
The Crown case is that the accused was involved in a sexual…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 211
Case: [2022] NSWSC 211
Decision Date: 03 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2), the defendant was on trial for criminal offences, the details of which are not provided in the summary. The matter was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction, the identity of which is not specified. The central issue before the court was the admissibility of disputed evidence that the defence sought to introduce. Specifically, the court had to determine whether certain hearsay evidence could be admitted under the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

The court considered the legal principles governing the admissibility of hearsay evidence, particularly in criminal trials. The court examined the nature of the evidence in question, its relevance, and its probative value against any prejudicial effect it might have. The court also assessed whether the evidence fell within any of the established exceptions to the hearsay rule, such as statements made for the purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment. After careful consideration, the court concluded that the disputed evidence was inadmissible because it did not satisfy the criteria for any of the recognised exceptions to the hearsay rule.

As a result, the court ruled that the disputed evidence could not be presented to the jury as part of the defence case. The court's decision was based on a strict application of the legal principles concerning the admissibility of hearsay evidence in criminal trials. The final orders of the court were that the disputed evidence would not be admitted, and the trial proceeded without it. The impact of this ruling on the outcome of the trial is not detailed in the summary.

Orders