R v Issakidis - [2016] NSWSC 747

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Issakidis [2016] NSWSC 747
Hearing dates: 16-18 March 2016, 21-24 March 2016, 29-31 March 2016, 4 April 2016, 7 & 8 April 2016, 11-15 April 2016, 18-22 April 2016, 26 April 2016, 28 April 2016, 2-6 May 2016, 8-13 May 2016, 16-20 May 2016, 23-27 May 2016, 30 May 2016.
Date of orders: 16 May 2016
Decision date: 16 May 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Beech-Jones J
Decision:
Pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 2005 (NSW) the use of the document at page 513A of Exhibit A be restricted to evidence of Mr Dickson’s state of mind and what he proposed to discuss with the accused.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – conspiracy – whether handwritten note of alleged co-conspirator admissible to prove accused’s involvement in conspiracy – Ahern v R – use of evidence restricted – discretion to exclude – whether admissible to prove what was discussed with the accused – use of document restricted.
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 2005 (NSW) – s 136
Cases Cited: - Ahern v R [1988] HCA 39, 165 CLR 87
- R v Dickson, R v Issakidis (Number 9) [2014] NSWSC 1460
- R v Masters, R v Richards, R v Wunderlich (1992) 26 NSWLR 450
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Crown (Commonwealth Prosecutor)
Michael John Issakidis (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
M. McHugh SC, A.P.C. McGrath (Crown)
Michael Byrne QC (Accused)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Peter Shields Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2012/128506
Publication restriction: Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment (revised from transcript)

The point has been reached in the trial where the evidence is closed and the Crown Prosecutor is about to commence his address. The only remaining issue before addresses commence is what use can be made of a handwritten file note of the alleged co-conspirator, Mr Anthony Dickson, which appears to bear the date Friday, 1 September 2006.
The Crown Prosecutor has indicated that in his address he will make reference to the document on two bases, the first as a document indicating what Mr Dickson proposed to discuss with the accused on Saturday 2 September 2006, and the other as an implicit statement by the alleged co-conspirator, Mr Dickson, of Mr Issakidis' involvement in the conspiracy alleged, which is said to be admissible to prove that fact in accordance with in Ahern v R [1988] HCA 39, 165 CLR 87 at 100 (“Ahern”).
It is necessary to say something further about the note. Written at the top of the note are the words “Friday 1 September”. It is common ground that is or could at least be concluded to be a reference to, Friday 1 September 2006. The next few lines of the note refer to a topic that was clearly of mutual interest to both Mr Dickson and Mr Issakidis which is peripheral to the core allegation of the Crown, namely the so-called “Mega Bac” technology. Next on the left hand side…

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 Issakidis 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: [2016] NSWSC 747
Decision Date: 16 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Issakidis involved a criminal trial where the accused was charged with conspiracy. The central issue was the admissibility of a handwritten note that was allegedly made by a co-conspirator. This note was sought to be used as evidence to prove the accused's involvement in the conspiracy. The case was heard in a higher court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the handwritten note could be admitted as evidence of the accused's involvement in the conspiracy and, if so, under what conditions. The court was required to consider the principles established in Ahern v R, which outlines the use of evidence in conspiracy cases. The court also had to determine whether the document could be used to prove what was discussed with the accused, and if so, what restrictions should apply to its use.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged that the principles in Ahern v R restrict the use of evidence from alleged co-conspirators. The court recognised that while such evidence could be admitted, its use must be tightly controlled to prevent unfair prejudice to the accused. The court concluded that the handwritten note could be admitted but only to prove what was discussed with the accused and not to directly prove his involvement in the conspiracy. The court exercised its discretion to impose strict limitations on the use of this evidence to ensure a fair trial.

The court's decision was that the handwritten note could be admitted as evidence, but only in a limited capacity, and subject to strict conditions to prevent it from being used unfairly against the accused. This decision underscored the need for careful consideration of the admissibility and use of co-conspirator statements in criminal trials.

Orders