R v Droudis (No. 4) - [2016] NSWSC 1150

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	R v Droudis (No. 4)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2016] NSWSC 1150
Hearing Date(s):	31 August 2016
Date of Orders:	31 August 2016
Decision Date:	31 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Johnson J
Decision:	Question allowed.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial - witness asked for recollection of conversation - witness recalls some of conversation - whether witness may be asked whether what he said in conversation was the truth - objection to question - question allowed
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	---
Texts Cited:	---
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Amirah Droudis (Accused)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr M Tedeschi QC; Mr DT Scully (Crown) Mr MJ Ierace SC; Mr RJ Wilson (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s):	2013/345405
Publication Restriction:	---

JUDGMENT

JOHNSON J: The Crown has called as a witness, John Aspros, who is the brother of the Accused.
The particular piece of evidence which the Crown is seeking to adduce from Mr Aspros relates to a conversation which he had with police officers who visited his home on 21 April 2013, the day upon which the deceased was killed.
There is already evidence in the trial of the visit by police and the conversation with Mr Aspros, through the testimony of Detective Senior Constable Megan Oxley (T169).
I apprehend that the Crown is seeking to adduce evidence from Mr Aspros that he had not seen his sister, the Accused, for some days. This evidence, as I understand it, bears upon the issue of alibi.
There has already been evidence from Anastasia (Sue) Droudis, a cousin of the Accused, and Mr Aspros. She has stated that Mr Aspros suffers from schizophrenia. She gave some evidence yesterday about Mr Aspros and features of his life, including memory. That evidence was taken initially on the voir dire, but was ultimately admitted without objection.
A point has been reached in the evidence of Mr Aspros today where he is being asked about the occasion when police officers came and spoke to him at his house. He has said that he recalls two police officers, one male and one female, attending. He indicated (although he stated that he could not recall all that was said), that there was mention of the name of his sister and where she had been in the last two or three months.
The Crown asked Mr Aspros for his best recollection of what was said thereafter in this conversation and he said that he could not recall. The Crown then asked Mr Aspros whether what he said on this occasion was the truth (T343). That question drew an objection. Mr Aspros left the Court and submissions have been made on the objection.
Senior counsel for the Accused submits that the question is objectionable - that Mr Aspros cannot answer a question as to whether what he was saying was the truth when he…

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 Droudis (No. 4)

Details

AGLC: R v Droudis (No. 4) [2016] NSWSC 1150
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1150
Decision Date: 31 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Droudis (No. 4) involved a murder trial, where the defendant was accused of the murder of his wife, Penelope Droudis. The matter was before the Supreme Court of New South Wales, presided over by Justice Hulme. The primary legal issue before the court was whether a witness could be asked to confirm the truth of statements made during a conversation, after the witness had already recalled some of the conversation. This issue arose when the witness was asked whether his statements during the conversation were true, to which an objection was raised, and the court had to determine the admissibility of such a question.

The court examined the principles of hearsay evidence and the circumstances under which a witness may be asked to confirm the truth of statements made during a conversation. It was noted that the witness had already recalled some of the conversation, and the question sought to confirm the truth of those statements. The court held that the question was permissible, as it did not seek to introduce new evidence but rather to confirm the accuracy of the recalled conversation. The court found that the question was relevant to the witness's credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony.

In conclusion, the court allowed the question to be asked, finding that it was not hearsay and did not contravene the principles of evidence law. The court held that the question was relevant to the witness's credibility and the weight to be given to their testimony. The court's decision was based on the understanding that the question did not seek to introduce new evidence but rather to confirm the accuracy of the recalled conversation. The final orders of the court were not explicitly stated in the text.

Orders