R v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 3)
[2022] ACTSC 135
•8 June 2022
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 3) |
Citation: | [2022] ACTSC 135 |
Hearing Date: | 8 June 2022 |
DecisionDate: | 8 June 2022 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | 1. Crown ordered to produce, in writing, a concise statement of the contents of the agreement. 2. Crown is to add the following matters to its opening in order to satisfy the accused about the extent of the allegations against them: a. The $25 million referred to yesterday is not in any way a quantification of the gain or the proceeds of this conspiracy and merely represented the maximum amount able to be allocated as funding for large scale projects by the Department. b. The source of the gain is the margin between what the Department pays the company on behalf of the contractor who has awarded the contract and the amount paid by the company to the contractor. c. There is no evidence that Mr Kahlon actually deleted any messages. 3. Application is otherwise dismissed. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jury trial – whether there was confusion, misapprehension or diversion arising from the Crown’s opening to the jury – where Crown opening was not unclear or raised allegations outside of the anticipated Crown case |
Parties: | The Queen ( Crown) Raminder Singh Kahlon ( Accused in SCC 296 of 2021) Abdul Aziz El-Debel ( Accused in SCC 297 of 2021) |
Representation: | Counsel D Staehli SC ( Crown) M Kalyk ( Accused in SCC 296 of 2021) C Newman ( Accused in SCC 297 of 2021) |
| Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Murphys Lawyers ( Accused in SCC 296 of 2021) Kamy Saeedi Law ( Accused in SCC 297 of 2021) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 296 of 2021 SCC 297 of 2021 |
Elkaim J:
After the empanelment of the jury yesterday the Crown opened its case. This morning an application was made by both accused for a number of orders set out in the document entitled “General form of order” dated today.
The document seeks a number of orders said to arise from matters of confusion, misapprehension or diversion arising from the Crown’s opening to the jury.
The theme of the first complaint (encompassing requested orders 1, 2 and 3) is that the agreement said by the Crown to constitute the conspiracy with which the accused had been charged was not made clear, to the extent that the jury might have thought there was an allegation of more than one agreement to act illegally.
I did not think the complaint was substantially made out, but bearing in mind the entitlement of the accused to know precisely the agreement which is alleged against them, I ordered the Crown to produce, in writing, a concise statement of the contents of the agreement.
This was done. It became MFI ‘4’.
In respect of requested orders 4, 5 and 6 of the same document, again I was not convinced that correction was necessarily required, although some matters, such as ‘who said what’ in the telephone transcripts did need clarification.
Again, for purposes of clarity, I asked the Crown to add certain matters to its opening in order to satisfy the accused about the extent of the allegations against them. The matters that I asked the Crown to add were the following:
(a) The $25 million referred to yesterday is not in any way a quantification of the gain or the proceeds of this conspiracy and merely represented the maximum amount able to be allocated as funding for large scale projects by the Department of Finance.
(b) The source of the gain is the margin between what the Department pays the company on behalf of the contractor who has awarded the contract and the amount paid by the company to the contractor.
(c) There is no evidence that Mr Kahlon actually deleted any messages.
In respect of any of the matters raised in requested orders 4, 5 and 6 which are not covered by the above additions, I repeat that I did not think the Crown opening was unclear or raised allegations outside of the anticipated Crown case.
| I certify that the preceding eight [8] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: |
0
0
0