R v Camelo-Gomez (No 3) - [2022] NSWSC 257

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Camelo-Gomez (No 3) [2022] NSWSC 257
Hearing dates: 28 February 2022, 1 and 2 March 2022
Date of orders: 3 March 2022
Decision date: 14 March 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Wilson J
Decision:
1 The evidence is admitted, as ordered by the Court on 3 March 2003; see [24] and [48]

Catchwords:
CRIME – TRIAL – murder – pre-trial hearing to determine admissibility of evidence – question of admissibility of evidence of telephone calls made by the accused – capacity of evidence to rationally affect the assessment of facts in issue – question of prejudice to the accused – questioning admissibility of expert evidence of common or typical injury occasioned by ligature strangulation – whether such evidence is based on specialised knowledge – whether probative value outweighed by prejudicial effect

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

Cases Cited:
R v Camelo-Gomez [2022] NSWSC 136
R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 211

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: On 3 March 2022, prior to the commencement of the trial of the accused for a charge of murder, an offence contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), the Court made orders with respect to the admission of disputed evidence on a number of subjects. Reasons were provided on 3 March 2022 for two of the orders made that day: R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 211. The Court’s reasons for the balance of the orders, as to the admissibility of telephone calls made by the accused, and the admissibility of expert evidence as to injuries sustained by the accused in November 2001, were reserved until today.
These are the last of the pre-trial matters in which rulings were required. The earlier decisions, from which the general background of the matter can be gleaned, are R v Camelo-Gomez [2022] NSWSC 136 and R v Camelo-Gomez (No 2) [2022] NSWSC 211.

Telephone Calls of 1 – 2 November 2001

The Crown argues that evidence of telephone calls made from the accused’s mobile telephone service to that used by Carlos Camelo and associated evidence is relevant to proof of a fact in issue in the trial, being the existence and nature of a relationship between the accused and Camelo. The accused objects to the tender of the evidence, arguing that there is no evidence that the accused made the telephone calls, and prejudice would be occasioned to her by the admission of the evidence.

The Evidence

If admitted, the Crown proposes to tender evidence of telephone calls placed from the accused’s telephone service by way of a short summary table, rather than by the tender of voluminous and no doubt complicated call charge records. The draft…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Camelo-Gomez (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] NSWSC 257
Decision Date: 14 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Camelo-Gomez (No 3), the accused faced a trial for the crime of murder. The court was tasked with determining the admissibility of certain evidence, including telephone calls made by the accused and expert evidence regarding typical injuries caused by ligature strangulation. The primary legal issues centred around whether the evidence of the telephone calls could rationally affect the assessment of facts in issue and whether it would cause undue prejudice to the accused. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the expert evidence was based on specialised knowledge and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have.

The court engaged in a detailed analysis of the evidence, considering whether the telephone calls had a rational connection to the facts in issue. It was determined that the calls did have the potential to provide relevant context and understanding of the accused's state of mind and actions. The court also examined the potential for prejudice to the accused, concluding that while the evidence might be prejudicial, it was not so significant as to exclude its admissibility. Regarding the expert evidence, the court found that it was based on specialised knowledge and had sufficient probative value to be admitted, despite any prejudicial effects, as it could assist the jury in understanding the nature of the injuries and the methods used.

The court concluded that both the telephone calls and the expert evidence were admissible. The rationale was that the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have, and the evidence was necessary for a fair assessment of the facts in issue. The court's decision ensured that all relevant and reliable evidence was considered in the trial, contributing to a just outcome. The final orders of the court allowed the evidence to be presented to the jury, facilitating a comprehensive and fair assessment of the case.

Orders