R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 11) - [2017] NSWSC 43

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 11) [2017] NSWSC 43
Hearing dates: 7 February 2017
Date of orders: 07 February 2017
Decision date: 07 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
1. The order made on 6 February 2017 preventing publication of evidence given in cross-examination by Gattellari is discharged.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – Accused charged with murder – Where witness giving evidence for the Crown against the accused had previously pleaded guilty to his role in the murder and had been sentenced – Where witness had been charged shortly before the commencement of the accused’s trial with conspiracy to extort money from the accused in return for not giving evidence – Where witness objected to questions going to those charges but then willingly answered the questions with the benefit of a certificate to be issued pursuant to s. 128 of the Evidence Act – Where application was then made on behalf of the witness that his evidence in cross-examination in relation to the most recent charges not be published – Whether such an order necessary to prevent prejudice to the proper administration of justice – Order not necessary – Interim order discharged
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Fairfax Digital Australia & New Zealand Pty Ltd & Ors v Ibrahim [2012] NSWCCA 125; (2012) 293 ALR 384
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Crown
Ronald Medich – Accused
Fortunato Gattellari – Applicant
Nationwide News Pty Limited - Intervenor
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G O’Rourke SC and Ms J Harris – Crown
Mr W Terracini SC, Ms M Curry and Mr T Quilter – Accused
Mr P Godkin - Applicant
Ms L Mullins (Solicitor) - Intervenor
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions, New South Wales – Crown
Colin Daley Quinn – Accused
Larina Mullins, Senior Litigation Counsel, Nationwide News Pty Limited – Intervenor

File Number(s): 2010/356916
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment - EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

INTRODUCTION

The accused Ronald Edward Medich is standing trial for (inter alia) the murder of Michael McGurk in September of 2009.
The Crown's principal witness, Fortunato Gattellari (“Gattellari”) is currently giving evidence. His cross-examination commenced yesterday. Gattellari has pleaded guilty to his role in the murder of Mr McGurk and is currently serving a sentence. It is common ground that when sentenced he received a discount of 60 per cent to reflect his plea and his assistance to the authorities.
In late December 2016 Gattellari was charged with further offences of conspiracy. The case against him is that he entered into an agreement with a number of others, the object of which was to seek a payment of a large sum of money, said to be somewhere between $10 and $15 million, from the accused, in return for not giving evidence in these proceedings. Gattellari has indicated that the allegations are denied and that he will be entering a plea of not guilty to the charges. Unsurprisingly, senior counsel for the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 11) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NSWSC 43
Decision Date: 07 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ronald Edward Medich, the accused faced a murder charge. The dispute centred on the admissibility and presentation of evidence provided by a witness who had previously pleaded guilty to his involvement in the same crime. The witness had been sentenced and, shortly before the trial, was charged with conspiracy to extort money from the accused in exchange for withholding his testimony. The witness initially objected to questions about these recent charges but later agreed to answer them, under a certificate issued under section 128 of the Evidence Act. The court was required to determine whether an order should be made to prevent the publication of the witness's cross-examination regarding the recent charges, to avoid prejudice to the administration of justice. The court found that such an order was unnecessary.

The court examined the necessity of protecting the witness from potential prejudice that could arise from the publication of his cross-examination about the recent charges. It considered the implications for the proper administration of justice, including the potential impact on the witness's willingness to testify and the integrity of the trial process. The court ultimately determined that the potential risks did not warrant the issuance of an order preventing publication. It found that the witness's willingness to testify, despite the recent charges, indicated that the proper administration of justice would not be prejudiced by the publication of his cross-examination.

In light of the court's reasoning, the interim order that sought to prevent the publication of the witness's cross-examination regarding the recent charges was discharged. The court concluded that the evidence in question would not lead to prejudice sufficient to warrant such an order. The decision underscored the importance of balancing the rights of the accused with the need to protect the integrity of the judicial process. The court's ruling ensured that the trial could proceed with the witness's evidence being subject to public scrutiny, in line with the principles of open justice.

Orders