Legal Research
Cases
R. v Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7)

R. v Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7)

Case [2012] NSWSC 1160 18 September 2012

Admissibility of Evidence

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R. v. Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7) [2012] NSWSC 1160
Hearing dates: 7/9/2012
Decision date: 18 September 2012
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: S.G. Campbell J
Decision:
My ruling is that MFI 21 be admitted as Exhibit "P"

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - whether prior inconsistent statement admissible as exception to credibility rule - evidence admissible under exception in s 106 Evidence Act - CRIMINAL LAW - evidence - whether electronically recorded interview with police should go to the jury room during deliberations - rule in Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208; R v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628 - not applicable in this case - exhibit to be available to jury with direction against giving disproportionate weight to the evidence
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1997 (Qld)
Evidence Amendment Act 2007 (NSW)
Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Adam v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 96
Aslett v R. [2006] NSWCCA 49
Blewitt v The Queen (1988) 62 ALJR 503
Gately v The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208
Lee v the Queen (1998) 195 CLR 594
McMahon v. John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd (No. 5) [2012] NSWSC 218
R v Adam AKA Odishou (1999) 47 NSWLR 267
R v Davies (2005) 11 VR 314
R v Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 1034.
R v NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628;
Texts Cited: Odgers, Uniform Evidence Law, 10th Edition 2012.
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Michael Anthony Ryan (Defendant)
Representation: Mr. P.K. Lynch (Crown Prosecutor)
Mr. C.C. Waterstreet (Defendant)
Director of Public Prosecutions
Murphys Lawyers (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2011/141863

Judgment

MFI 21 is a DVD containing excerpts from Mr. Moody's electronically recorded interview with the police on 1st May 2011. In an earlier ruling, I gave the Crown leave to cross-examine Mr. Moody under s.38 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) on the basis, inter alia, that Mr. Moody made a prior inconsistent statement: R. v. Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 2) [2012] NSWSC 1034.

MFI 21 is that statement.

The learned Crown Prosecutor now tenders MFI 21, and Mr. Waterstreet of Counsel, for the defence, objects. His objections are twofold. First, Mr. Waterstreet argues that since amendments to the Evidence Act made by the Evidence Amendment Act 2007 (NSW) - which commenced on the 1st of January 2009 and implemented the recommendations contained in ALRC 102 - a prior inconsistent statement is only admissible if it falls within an exception to the credibility rule established by s.102 Evidence Act, and in this case none apply. Secondly, Mr. Waterstreet argues in the alternative that R. v. NZ (2005) 63 NSWLR 628 and Gately v. The Queen (2007) 232 CLR 208 created a particular rule about audio-visual evidence which catches MFI 21.

The Evidence

It is necessary to recapitulate some evidence set out in my previous ruling.

Mr. Moody gave evidence about the incident in the carpark from 409.20T -…

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 Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7)

Details

AGLC: R. v Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7) [2012] NSWSC 1160
Case: [2012] NSWSC 1160
Decision Date: 18 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R. v Michael Anthony Ryan (No. 7) involved the respondent facing criminal charges. The primary issue in the case was whether certain prior statements made by the respondent were admissible as evidence under the exceptions to the hearsay rule, and whether an electronically recorded interview with the police should be made available to the jury during their deliberations. The court was tasked with determining whether the evidence in question could be admitted under section 106 of the Evidence Act, and whether the rule in Gately v The Queen, which pertains to the availability of exhibits to the jury, applied in this instance.

The court considered the application of section 106 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the admission of prior inconsistent statements as an exception to the hearsay rule. The court found that the statements in question did indeed fall within the scope of the exception and were therefore admissible. The court also examined the rule in Gately v The Queen and considered whether it should apply in this case. The court concluded that the rule was not applicable, and that the electronically recorded interview should be made available to the jury during their deliberations, with a direction to the jury not to give disproportionate weight to the evidence.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful analysis of the relevant legal principles and their application to the facts of the case. The court found that the prior inconsistent statements were admissible under section 106 of the Evidence Act, and that the rule in Gately v The Queen did not apply in this instance. The court ordered that the electronically recorded interview should be made available to the jury during their deliberations, with a direction to the jury not to give disproportionate weight to the evidence.

The final orders of the court were that the prior inconsistent statements made by the respondent were admissible as evidence, and that the electronically recorded interview should be made available to the jury during their deliberations, with a direction to the jury not to give disproportionate weight to the evidence. The case highlights the importance of careful consideration of the legal principles governing the admissibility of evidence and the availability of exhibits to the jury.

Orders