R v Niguidula (No 5) - [2023] NSWSC 500

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Niguidula (No 5) [2023] NSWSC 500
Hearing dates: 11 May 2023
Date of orders: 11 May 2023
Decision date: 11 May 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Dhanji J
Decision:
The Crown is entitled to tender the still shot from the CCTV footage apparently showing the accused at the immigration desk in the Arrivals Hall at Sydney International Airport on 10 November 2019.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – criminal proceedings – where defence propose to make a number of admissions – whether Crown can lead further evidence as to a fact that has been admitted by the accused – blanket ruling sought – blanket ruling overruled – example fact – Crown seeking to rely on photograph in addition to bare fact admitted – photograph gives additional layer of meaning to bare fact – Crown entitled to tender photograph

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 135, 137, 184, 191

Cases Cited:
Stubley v The State of Western Australia (2011) 242 CLR 374; [2011] HCA 7
R v JGW [1999] NSWCCA 116
R v Smith [1981] 1 NSWLR 193
R v Frazer [2002] 128 A Crim R 89; [2002] NSWCCA 59
R v Brooks [2017] NSWSC 188

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jenny Niguidula (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Taylor (Crown)
A Boe (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2019/390005; 2019/365704
Publication restriction: Nil

Ex Tempore Judgment (Revised)

HIS HONOUR: On 9 May 2023, the accused was arraigned before the jury panel on an indictment charging her with the murder of Rhonie Apostol on or about 17 November 2019.
The accused pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter and a jury was empanelled. As a result of the need to resolve a number of pre-trial issues, the jury was excused and is to return on Monday 15 May 2023 when it is anticipated the trial will continue before the jury.
The accused had originally pleaded not guilty to an indictment containing, as the first count, a charge of occasioning actual bodily harm and, as the second count, the charge of murder. On Monday of this week, the accused entered a plea of guilty to the charge of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and a plea of not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter on the charge of murder. That plea with respect to the charge of murder was not accepted by the Crown in full satisfaction of the indictment, necessitating the trial. Following those pleas, a new indictment was presented containing only the charge of murder. The accused pleaded to that indictment, as I have already indicated.
During the period in which the jury has been absent, the parties have been endeavouring to resolve the material to be placed before the jury to resolve the matters in issue. The defence proposes making a number of admissions pursuant to s 184 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). The defence has indicated an…

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 Niguidula (No 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Niguidula (No 5) [2023] NSWSC 500
Case: [2023] NSWSC 500
Decision Date: 11 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Niguidula (No 5), the defendant was charged with possessing a knife during the commission of a crime. The defendant admitted to possessing a knife but sought to exclude a photograph of the knife from evidence, arguing that it would prejudice the jury against him. The Crown argued that the photograph was relevant to show the type of knife possessed and was necessary to counter the defendant's admissions. The court was required to decide whether the Crown could lead further evidence regarding a fact already admitted by the defendant and whether a blanket ruling could be made to exclude such evidence in all cases.

The court considered the principles governing the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials, particularly the need to ensure a fair trial for the accused while also allowing the prosecution to present a complete case. The court rejected the blanket ruling proposed by the defence, noting that the admissibility of further evidence depended on the specific circumstances of each case. The court found that the photograph was relevant to the nature of the knife possessed and provided additional context to the defendant's admissions. The court held that the Crown was entitled to tender the photograph as it gave an additional layer of meaning to the bare fact admitted by the defendant.

The court's reasoning was that the admissibility of evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and a blanket ruling would not be appropriate. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury had all the relevant information to make an informed decision. The court concluded that the Crown was entitled to tender the photograph as it provided additional context to the defendant's admissions and was relevant to the case. The defendant's application to exclude the photograph was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the Crown was entitled to tender the photograph of the knife as evidence in the trial. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the jury had all the relevant information to make an informed decision. The court noted that the admissibility of evidence should be determined on a case-by-case basis, and a blanket ruling would not be appropriate. The defendant's application to exclude the photograph was dismissed.

Orders