R v Perrine

[2021] NSWDC 241

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Perrine [2021] NSWDC 241

Hearing dates:

31 May 2021

Date of orders:

1 June 2021

Decision date:

01 June 2021

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Before:

P Taylor SC DCJ

Decision:

The Crown’s application for leave to re-open its case and recall Officer Kim is refused.

Catchwords:

EVIDENCE — Course of evidence — Re-opening of Crown case after closing of defence – Recall Crown witness

Cases Cited:

Hofer v R [2019] NSWCCA 244

Killick v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 565

Shaw v The Queen (1952) 85 CLR 365

The Queen v Chin (1985) 157 CLR 671

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Regina
Jean Cedrick Perrine (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
Ms T Hennessy (Accused)

Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions NSW (Crown)
Legal Aid NSW (Accused)

File Number(s):

2020/107366

Publication restriction:

None

Judgment

1. Jean Perrine is being tried on a charge of cultivating, by enhanced indoor means, a commercial quantity of prohibited plants, namely cannabis. One major issue in the trial is whether the actions of Mr Perrine were done as a consequence of duress. Disproving the existence of duress was not an aspect of the Crown case because there was no evidence that raised it.

2. Mr Perrine was interviewed twice in recorded interviews, and no mention was made by Mr Perrine of the threats, guns and fear of death that Mr Perrine has given evidence about, although it may be observed that neither interview embarked on a close investigation of the motivation for Mr Perrine being involved in the cannabis cultivation.

3. During Mr Perrine’s evidence-in-chief, he was invited to give reasons for why he had made no disclosure to the police during the interviews of the threats of which he had testified. He provided answers, satisfactory or otherwise, to those questions. At the close of his evidence-in-chief, there was no evidence or any suggestion that he had informed the police of the threats. There was, however, evidence that he had led the police to a house in Busby where one of the principals of the cannabis operation may have been located. That event had been the subject of evidence both from the police and the accused.

4. The cross-examination of Mr Perrine commenced with the Crown asking the rather wide question: “The evidence you gave yesterday, in particular the evidence of threats and guns. Have you ever told that to any police officer at any stage?” [1] The answers that followed from Mr Perrine were not without complications, but in substance were to the effect that on the trip to Busby, Mr Perrine did tell Officer Kim that he was threatened and that, “they were dangerous people”, [2] although Mr Perrine also conceded that he could not recall the exact words and was “more concentrating on the facts of the, you know, the house in Busby than anything else”. [3]

   1. T137/15.

   2. T139/39.

   3. T138/10.

5. The Crown now applies on a voir dire or Basha application for leave to…