R v Jaghbir (No 1) - [2020] NSWSC 762

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jaghbir (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 762
Hearing dates: 16 March 2020 & 9 June 2020
Date of orders: 12 June 2020
Decision date: 18 June 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Davies J
Decision:
1.   Subject to orders (3) and (5) to (9) below, certain evidence given on 12 July 2017 and 18 October 2017 to the New South Wales Crime Commission by the witness referred to as Witness 1 is to be made available to:

(a)   The Crown prosecutors and solicitors acting for the Crown in these proceedings; and

(b)   Mr G James QC, Mr E James and the solicitors instructing them for the accused Ahmed Jaghbir in these proceedings.

2.   The New South Wales Crime Commission is to produce to the Court the following documents on or before 15 June 2020:

(a)   Those portions of the transcripts of Witness 1’s evidence identified in an email from the Associate to Davies J of 10 June 2020 to Danka Mrdjenovic at the New South Wales Crime Commission and in the email from the Associate to Davies J to Georgiana Guirguis at the New South Wales Crime Commission of 11 June 2020 both of which emails are annexed hereto, in which those portions of the evidence are highlighted; and

(b)   A document reproducing those parts of the transcripts of Witness 1’s evidence that are highlighted (“the Witness 1 redacted transcript”).

3.   Subject to orders (4) to (9) below, certain evidence given on 24 May 2018 to the New South Wales Crime Commission by the witness referred to as Witness 2 is to be made available to:

(a)   The Crown prosecutors and solicitors acting for the Crown in these proceedings;

(b)   Mr G James QC, Mr E James and the solicitors instructing them for the accused Ahmed Jaghbir in these proceedings; and

(c)   Mr Peter Lange of counsel and Mr Nick Hanna, the legal representatives for Witness 2.

4.   The New South Wales Crime Commission is to produce to the Court on or before 15 June 2020:

(a)   Those portions of the transcript of Witness 2’s evidence identified in an email from the Associate to Davies J of 10 June 2020 to Danka Mrdjenovic at the New South Wales Crime Commission, which email is annexed hereto in which those portions of the evidence are highlighted; and

(b)   A document reproducing those parts of the transcripts of Witness 2’s evidence that are highlighted (“the Witness 2 redacted transcript”).

5.   The evidence that is to be made available in accordance with orders (1) and (3) above are the Witness 1 redacted transcript and Witness 2 redacted transcript.

6.   The redacted transcripts are to be made available once the Court is satisfied that the redactions accord with the portions indicated in the identified emails.

7.   The redacted transcripts are to be made available to the legal representatives specified in order 1 by being collected from the Associate to Davies J by appointment on and…

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 Jaghbir (No 1)

Details

AGLC: R v Jaghbir (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 762
Case: [2020] NSWSC 762
Decision Date: 18 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Jaghbir, applied for the release of evidence given before the Crime Commission under section 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW). The application was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Jaghbir sought the release of certain documents and evidence that had been presented to the Crime Commission, arguing that it was necessary for his defence in a criminal matter.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the interests of justice required the release of the evidence. The Court had to consider whether the interests of justice would be impeded or frustrated if the evidence were not released. The Court also needed to determine the relevance and significance of the examination material, and whether the potential prejudice to the defendant outweighed any public interest in maintaining the secrecy of the evidence.

The Court found that the interests of justice required the release of certain evidence. It considered the relevance of the evidence to the defendant's case, the potential prejudice to the defendant if the evidence were not released, and the public interest in maintaining secrecy. The Court determined that the evidence had significant worth and was necessary for the defendant's defence. The Court found that the public interest in maintaining secrecy did not outweigh the need for the evidence to be released. The Court ordered the release of certain documents and evidence to the defendant.

The Court made an order that certain documents and evidence be released to the defendant, Jaghbir. This included the release of the evidence that had been presented to the Crime Commission. The Court found that the release of this evidence was necessary for the interests of justice, and that the potential prejudice to the defendant outweighed any public interest in maintaining secrecy.

Orders