R v Manevski - [2016] NSWSC 1032

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Manevski [2016] NSWSC 1032
Hearing dates: 20 July 2016
Date of orders: 20 July 2016
Decision date: 29 July 2016
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Button J
Decision:
Leave was granted to Crown Prosecutor, but only if cross-examination occurred in the following general way: see paragraph 46.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – evidence – application to cross-examine the accused to rebut evidence of good character – whether accused intentionally raised evidence of good character generally or specifically – whether leave should be granted – whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice – leave to cross-examine granted on a limited basis
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 110, 112, 137, 192, 192(2)
Cases Cited: Gabriel v The Queen (1997) 76 FCR 279
PGM v The Queen [2006] NSWCCA 310; (2006) 164 A Crim R 426
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina
Rachel Manevski
Representation:
Counsel:
B Campbell (Crown)
J Fitzgerald (Accused)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Legal Aid New South Wales (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/46254

Judgment

Introduction

During the cross-examination of the accused, the Crown applied for leave to cross-examine her about an aspect of her character. After hearing submissions, I granted that leave on a very limited basis, and indicated that I would give reasons later, so as not to interrupt the smooth running of the trial. This judgment represents those reasons.

Background

The background of the application was as follows.
On 13 July 2016, the accused, Rachel Manevski, was arraigned on an indictment before a jury panel and me at Newcastle. The indictment contained two counts: first, a count averring that, on 13 February 2014 at Niagara Park, she murdered Kieran Priestland; and, in the alternative, a count averring that, the murder having been committed by Andrew Perkins, she was an accessory after the fact to it.
The trial commenced immediately upon her pleas of not guilty. It quickly became clear that the major issue with regard to the count of murder was whether the accused had entered into a joint criminal enterprise with Mr Perkins to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon the deceased.
During the cross-examination by defence counsel of Detective Senior Constable Green (the officer in charge of the investigation), the following exchange occurred (at TT 377.46 – 378.01):

Q. Now, detective, as the officer in charge, have you made enquiries regarding the antecedents of my client Rachel Manevski?
A. I have.
Q. And are you able to tell the Court that Ms Manevski has never been convicted of any criminal offence whatsoever, violent or otherwise?
A. Prior to this matter, yes.
Q. She’s not convicted.
A. My apologies. No, she hasn’t, that’s right. Sorry.

No evidence was led to rebut that proposition in the Crown case. Nor was any application to do with the character of the accused in a specific respect or generally made by the Crown Prosecutor during…

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 Manevski

Details

AGLC: R v Manevski [2016] NSWSC 1032
Case: [2016] NSWSC 1032
Decision Date: 29 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Manevski, who had been charged with various offences, including murder. The respondent was seeking to have the Crown granted leave to cross-examine him in order to rebut evidence of his good character. The Crown argued that the respondent had intentionally raised evidence of his good character, either in general or in a specific instance, and that the probative value of the cross-examination outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent had intentionally raised evidence of his good character, and if so, whether the Crown should be granted leave to cross-examine him in order to rebut that evidence. The court had to consider whether the probative value of the evidence to be obtained from the cross-examination outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to the respondent.

The court found that the respondent had intentionally raised evidence of his good character, and that the Crown should be granted leave to cross-examine him in order to rebut that evidence. The court noted that the respondent had made a number of statements to the police that were intended to show that he was a good person, and that these statements had been made in the context of the respondent's attempt to mitigate his culpability for the offences with which he had been charged. The court found that the probative value of the evidence to be obtained from the cross-examination outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to the respondent, and that leave should be granted on a limited basis.

The court ordered that the Crown be granted leave to cross-examine the respondent on the issue of his good character, but that the scope of the cross-examination be limited to the statements made by the respondent to the police that were intended to show that he was a good person. The court also ordered that the cross-examination be conducted in a manner that did not unfairly prejudice the respondent.

Orders