R v Kadric (No 1)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1403 of 2002

THE QUEEN

HARRIS KADRIC

---

JUDGE:	FLATMAN J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2002
DATE OF RULING:	4 June 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kadric (No. 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 239

---

CRIMINAL LAW RULING - Playing of Record of Interview on Re-Examination - Prior Inconsistent Statements - Demeanour of Witness.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr. B. Kayser	Ms Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr. I. Brewer	Joannidis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

This is an application by Mr Kayser for the Crown to play the whole of the Record of Interview conducted with the police on 7 March 2001with the witness, Brooke Rees, to the jury in the course of re-examination.

In the course of cross-examination, it was clearly put to the witness that she was "hanging out" at the time she had that interview with the police. She was then cross-examined as to her version of events in the Record of Interview and many of the questions went to prior consistent statements. It was put to her that she was concerned for her liberty during the Record of Interview on more than one occasion and it was put to her that the police were pushing her in the Record of Interview.

It is open to infer that it will be suggested either expressly or by implication that the evidence given by the witness has been exaggerated or reconstructed, whether deliberately or otherwise, or as the result of suggestion.

There is a complicated body of law relating to the issues set out in re-examination on documents in such cases as Walker v. Walker (1937) 57 CLR 630; Alchin v. Commissioner of Railways (1935) 35 SR(NSW) 498; s.36 Evidence Act 1958 (Vic); and Glass (ed.) Seminars on Evidence (1970) Chapter 1.

I am constrained to some extent in the sense that the jury has been kept out of the running of the trial and, in the interests of keeping the trial alive, I do not have the time at this stage to provide an analysis of those cases.

I am satisfied, however, that the law provides for the course to be adopted and, moreover, it seems on general principles that in re-examination counsel for the Crown can tender those portions of a document, and in this case, the video, which attracted cross-examination and any parts explaining those portions.

Because of the line of cross-examination as to the demeanour and behaviour of the witness, it is arguable that the whole of the interview be admitted. I have invited both sides to consider editing the interview but, in the end, it seems to me the only sensible course is to play the whole of the interview to put the whole of the matter in context.

---

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kadric (No 1) was heard in the relevant Australian court, where the appellant was being tried for serious criminal offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility of a recorded police interview during the re-examination of a key witness. The appellant sought to challenge the credibility of the witness by playing the recording to the jury, arguing that it revealed inconsistencies with the witness's current testimony. The court was tasked with determining whether such a recording could be properly admitted and, if so, what weight it could be given in assessing the witness's credibility.

The legal issues before the court included the proper use of prior inconsistent statements to impeach a witness's credibility during re-examination, and the relevance of a witness's demeanour in conjunction with such statements. The court had to consider whether the recording could be used to challenge the witness's credibility and whether its admission would be prejudicial or confusing to the jury. The court also needed to decide if the demeanour of the witness during the interview could be considered when assessing the reliability of the statements.

The court ruled that the recording of the police interview could be admitted as evidence during the re-examination phase, but its use was circumscribed by strict guidelines to ensure fairness. The court found that such recordings could be relevant in impeaching a witness's credibility if they revealed inconsistencies with the witness's current testimony. However, the court emphasised that the recording could not be used to directly attack the witness's character or to suggest that the witness was lying. The court also noted that the demeanour of the witness during the interview could be considered by the jury in assessing the reliability of the statements, provided it was done in a manner that did not unfairly prejudice the appellant. The ruling allowed for the recording to be played to the jury but required careful handling to maintain the integrity of the trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established