R v Cichacz

[2021] ACTSC 77

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Cichacz

Citation:

[2021] ACTSC 77

Hearing Date:

30 April 2021  

DecisionDate:

30 April 2021

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [7]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Pre-Trial Application – Coincidence evidence – receiving stolen property – consent to application by defence

Legislation Cited:

Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 98, 101

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Rosalind Cichacz (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel

M Dyason (Crown)

J Sabharwal (Accused)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

David Healey Solicitors (Accused)

File Numbers:

SCC 13 of 2021; SCC 18 of 2021; SCC 12 of 2021; SCC 19 of 2021

ELKAIM J:

1. On 31 March 2021 the Crown filed an application and notice to adduce coincidence evidence.

1. The application is supported by the affidavit of Mr Marcus Dyason, affirmed on 30 March 2021.

1. The respondent intends to plead not guilty to three charges of receiving stolen property. She has already pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a controlled drug and a separate charge of unlawfully possessing stolen property.

1. In the application the Crown seeks leave to use the evidence in the matters of which the respondent has pleaded guilty as coincidence evidence in the matters to which she intends to plead not guilty. In addition the Crown wishes to use the facts in each count as coincidence evidence in the other counts.

1. In order to do so the Crown needs to satisfy the court of the provisions in s 98 of the Evidence Act 2011 (ACT). There is no difficulty with the notice requirement. Subsection 1(b) provides “whether the court thinks that the evidence will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence presented or to be presented by the party seeking to present the evidence, have significant probative value”. On the explanation given to me this morning by the Crown, I am satisfied of these requirements. I am also satisfied that the provisions of s 101 do not operate to prevent the application succeeding.

1. I must say that I had some doubts about whether this application could succeed but those doubts have been allayed by the consent to the application given by experienced criminal counsel for the respondent. I have no doubt that if there were any real argument it would have been raised.

Orders:

1. Accordingly, I make order 1 in the Application in Proceeding filed on 31 March 2021.  

I certify that the preceding seven [7] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim

Associate:

Date: 30 April 2021