R v Pieter Helmhout

[2000] NSWSC 186

CITATION:

R v Pieter Helmhout & Ors [2000] NSWSC 186

FILE NUMBER(S):

SC 70023/99; 70205/99; 70206/99; 70098/99

HEARING DATE(S):

25 February 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:

25 February 2000

PARTIES :

Regina v Pieter Egbert Helmhout

Regina v Deborah Joy Davidson

Regina v Mark William Helmhout

Regina v Joanne Rose Delly

JUDGMENT OF:

Bell J

COUNSEL :	C: Mr R D Cogswell SC PH: Mr A Webb DD: Mr J S Stratton MH: Mr G Corr JD: Mr M Crawford-Fish
SOLICITORS:	C: D Knott, Director of Public Prosecutions PH: Christine Bourke DD: Brenda Duchen MH: J R Jeffery, South Eastern Aboriginal Legal Service JD: G J Piscioneri
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Application for separate trial for Pieter Helmhout - whether prejudicial material be cured by direction
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900, s365
DECISION:	Indictment severed; Pieter Helmhout be tried separately

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J

Friday, 25 February 2000

70023/99 - REGINA v PIETER EGBERT HELMHOUT
70205/99 - REGINA v DEBORAH JOY DAVIDSON
70206/99 - REGINA v MARK WILLIAM HELMHOUT
70098/99 - REGINA v JOANNE ROSE DELLY
JUDGMENT - Application for separate trial for Pieter Helmhout

1    HER HONOUR: Mr Webb, who appears on behalf of the accused Pieter Helmhout, makes application that his client be separately tried from his co-accused, Mark Helmhout. The basis of the application is that at the joint trial the Crown would lead evidence in the case against Mark Helmhout in the form of an ERISP between investigating police and Mark Helmhout. That interview contains material highly prejudicial to the accused, Pieter Helmhout. It is submitted by Mr Webb that the prejudice is of such a high order that it could not be cured by direction.

2    The case against the accused, Pieter Helmhout, will depend in large measure upon the evidence of the witness Edward Szkudelski. The version of events that the Crown anticipates Mr Szkudelski will give receives, on a view, strong support from the account given by Mark Helmhout in his interview. The Crown frankly concedes that it would be difficult for a jury notwithstanding any direction I may give to separate out in their consideration of the weight they give to the evidence of Edward Szkudelski in the trial of Pieter Helmhout the impression created by the contents of the interview between Mark Helmhout and police.

3 I am of the view that there is in this case a real risk that the Crown case against Pieter Helmhout will be made immeasurably stronger by reason of the impact of the Mark Helmhout record of interview upon the jury and accordingly pursuant to s 365 of the Crimes Act, I direct that the indictment be severed and that Pieter Helmhout be tried separately from his co-accused, Mark Helmhout.

**********

Last Modified: 09/25/2000