R v Christiansz - [2015] VSC 94

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 0094 of 2014

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JOSEPH GEORGE CHRISTIANSZ

---
Ruling No. 1

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 March 2015
DATE OF RULING:	17 March 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Christiansz
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 94 (Ruling No. 1)

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms C Randazzo SC	Melasecca, Zayler & Kelly Barristers and Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

In this case the following relevant documents were delivered and filed:

1) a summary of prosecution opening - 6 March 2015 — Exhibit 1 for the purposes of submissions and arguments as to relevance and admissibility of certain parts of the evidence;

2) defence response - 12 March 2015 — Exhibit 2;

3) submissions relating to motive and other aspects of the Crown case which were the subject of objection - 15 March 2015 — Exhibit 3; and

4) further submissions in response to the prosecution’s submissions of 13 March - 16 March 2015 — Exhibit 4

Resolved evidentiary issues

Those documents, and submissions in support, were relied upon during preliminary discussions and argument as to the admissibility of various aspects of the evidence in the. During those submissions and debate certain matters were resolved and all parties agreed that there was no necessity for the court to rule on the admissibility of those agreed matters.

To ensure that there is no confusion I will list the areas of evidence to which objection was originally made, and the resolution that both parties concurred was the correct conclusion. The parts of the evidence objected to were:

(i) The admissibility of the evidence that the accused was a prohibited person, which was a necessary element of the offence in charge 7 on the indictment, that the accused was a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. That matter has been resolved by the accused indicating that he will plead guilty to the charge of prohibited person and the Crown accepting that plea and agreeing to sever that charge from the indictment.

(ii) Issue was taken with the description of Mr Loulating, a security guard, who was in the employ of the accused. It is conceded by all parties that Mr Loulating was employed as a security guard on this day by the accused, through a company called Pure Protection. In his statement Mr Loulating said that he was arrested by police on that day but he had been exonerated. In relation to what he was doing in terms of assisting the accused, he stated that he was sort of looking after him and being utilised to move furniture and protect him from ex-partners he used to work with. Currently, I am not being called upon to rule in respect of the admissibility of this witness as the Crown intend to speak to him and clarify what,…

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 Christiansz

Details

AGLC: R v Christiansz [2015] VSC 94
Case: [2015] VSC 94
Decision Date: 17 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Christiansz involved Joseph George Christiansz, who was charged with multiple offences, including being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The court addressed several evidentiary issues, such as the admissibility of certain evidence, including the accused's status as a prohibited person, the employment details of a security guard, the items found in the accused's possession and residence, and a text message allegedly sent by the accused. Many of these issues were resolved through agreement between the parties, such as the accused pleading guilty to being a prohibited person and the Crown agreeing to sever that charge from the indictment. The primary unresolved issue was the admissibility of heroin found in the accused's residence and the potential prejudicial impact of this evidence on the jury's perception of the accused.

The court examined whether the probative value of the heroin evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, as per sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 2008. The defence argued that the heroin evidence was highly prejudicial as it could lead the jury to infer that the accused was a drug dealer, thereby predisposing them to believe he was more likely to commit violent crimes. The Crown, however, contended that the evidence was relevant to the accused's motive and could not be disregarded despite its prejudicial nature. The court concluded that while the evidence was prejudicial, proper jury directions could mitigate this effect, ensuring the evidence's probative value was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

Orders