R v Niguidula (No 6) - [2023] NSWSC 501

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Niguidula (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 501
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 application to exclude Admissions 4 and 5 is refused.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – admissions – criminal proceedings – where fresh indictment presented – application to revisit earlier rulings – relevance to expert’s opinion – application refused

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 23A
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 137

Cases Cited:
R v Niguidula (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 481

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: In this matter objection was taken by the accused to a series of statements made by the accused and relied upon by the Crown as admissions. Those various statements were given the appellations of Admission 1 through to 6. I ruled on those six admissions in R v Niguidula (No 3) [2023] NSWSC 481. At the time I gave this decision in relation to the six admissions, the accused had been arraigned on an indictment charging her with offences of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and murder and had pleaded not guilty to both those offences.
Since that time, the accused has pleaded guilty to what was count 1 on the indictment, the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and has pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter in relation to what was count 2.
As a consequence of that course of events, a fresh indictment was prepared containing only the count of murder. The accused was arraigned before the jury panel on that indictment and pleaded not guilty to murder but guilty to manslaughter. The Crown did not accept that plea in full satisfaction of the indictment and a jury was empanelled. The jury has been sent away and is to return on Monday, 15 May 2023, when it is anticipated the trial will proceed before the jury. In the interim, the parties have been working to resolve outstanding evidentiary issues. The accused has, before me this morning, sought to re-ventilate the decision previously made in respect of what were labelled "Admissions 4 and 5" on the basis that, the issues having changed, the evidence was no longer admissible. I can accept the general proposition that the relevance and consequent admissibility of evidence is dependent upon the matters in issue in any particular trial. I can accept, therefore, that, as a result of a change in those issues, it may be appropriate to revisit earlier rulings.
In relation to this matter, the relevant admissions are set out in R v Niguidula (No 3) (at [100]):

[Accused]: You son of a bitch, Jan Lei! You asked me to kill Ronnie, Jan Lei. You son of…

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 6)

Details

AGLC: R v Niguidula (No 6) [2023] NSWSC 501
Case: [2023] NSWSC 501
Decision Date: 11 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Niguidula and others, were charged with various drug-related offences. The case came before the High Court of Australia, which was asked to review the application of the respondents to revisit earlier rulings made by the County Court of Victoria. The respondents sought to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically admissions made by Niguidula and their relevance to the expert opinion presented during the trial. The court was required to decide whether the respondents' application to revisit the earlier rulings was valid and whether the fresh indictment presented by the prosecution was admissible.

The court considered the principles of finality in judicial proceedings and the circumstances in which an application to revisit earlier rulings could be justified. It examined the nature of the evidence in question and its relevance to the expert’s opinion. The court found that the application to revisit earlier rulings was not warranted as it did not meet the exceptional circumstances required to depart from the principle of finality. The court also held that the fresh indictment was admissible as it did not constitute an abuse of process. The fresh indictment related to additional charges arising from the same criminal conduct and was presented to ensure that all relevant charges were considered in the proceedings.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the respondents' application to revisit earlier rulings and upheld the County Court's decision. The court emphasised the importance of finality in judicial proceedings and the need to adhere to the principle unless exceptional circumstances exist. The fresh indictment was found to be admissible and relevant to the case. The court concluded that the respondents' application did not meet the criteria for revisiting earlier rulings and upheld the County Court's decision on the admissibility of the evidence in question. The fresh indictment was allowed, and the case proceeded to trial on the basis of all charges presented.

Orders