R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 16) - [2017] NSWSC 104

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 16) [2017] NSWSC 104
Hearing dates: 20 February 2017
Date of orders: 20 February 2017
Decision date: 20 February 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [16]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Cross-examination – Credibility rule – Whether evidence substantially affected the credibility of the witness
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v El-Azzi [2004] NSWCCA 455
R v Medich (No 13) [2017] NSWSC 70
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina – Crown
Ronald Edward Medich – Accused
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms G O’Rourke SC and Ms S Harris – Crown
Mr W Terracini SC, Ms M Curry and Mr T Quilter – Accused
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions, New South Wales – Crown
Colin Daley Quinn – Accused

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

Judgment - EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

An issue has arisen concerning evidence sought to be elicited from the witness Senad Kaminic (“Kaminic”) in cross-examination, to which the Crown has objected. The matter has been dealt with on a voir dire.
Exhibit 1 on the voir dire are medical reports from Dr Milorad Sokolovic of 8 February, 2013 and 27 September, 1999. Doctor Sokolovic has been Kaminic's treating psychiatrist since 1998. There is also a report of Dr Faried Ibrahim, who has been Kaminic’s General Practitioner for some years. I will return to the contents of those reports in a moment.
Exhibit 2 on the voir dire is a clinical note dated 24 October 2010 regarding Kaminic’s mental state at or about the time that he was taken into custody.
Kaminic has also given oral evidence on the voir dire.
It is common ground that Kaminic was a member of the Bosnian Army some years ago. It appears that, stemming from his military service, he developed post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). He made reference in his evidence to being placed, at some stage of his military service, in a concentration camp. He said that his PTSD became worse when he was placed in custody after being charged over his involvement in the deceased’s murder. When asked whether he had depressive symptoms in the period leading up to his arrest, he answered to the effect that he did so "more or less."
Kaminic has undergone psychiatric treatment in recent years. He also gave evidence that he had suffered some hallucinations and voices at about the time of being taken into custody, but that those hallucinations diminished over a period of time to the point where, since his release in 2015, they have abated entirely.
Kaminic also accepted in the course of cross-examination that he has previously engaged in what might be described as “binge drinking” from time to time, and has received various warnings from his treating practitioners about the adverse effect of that drinking on his health.
The reports of Dr Sokolovic make reference to Kaminic's medical history and, in particular, the fact that he was "exposed to…

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. 16) 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 104
Decision Date: 20 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Edward Medich was charged with the murder of a police officer. The trial was held in the Supreme Court of South Australia, presided over by Justice Blunden. The primary issue before the court was whether the evidence presented during the cross-examination of a key witness substantially affected the credibility of the witness and thereby impacted the fairness of the trial. The defence argued that certain questions asked during cross-examination were designed to undermine the witness's credibility and that this affected the jury's ability to make an informed decision.

Justice Blunden examined the nature and extent of the cross-examination, considering whether it was reasonable and necessary for the purposes of testing the witness's credibility. The court held that the cross-examination was conducted within permissible limits, and no substantial unfairness occurred that would warrant a retrial. The judge found that the evidence presented by the witness remained reliable and relevant to the case, and the cross-examination did not unduly sway the jury's perception of the witness's credibility.

Based on the reasoning provided, the court dismissed the application for a retrial. The evidence presented during the trial, including the cross-examination of the witness, was found to be within the bounds of fairness and did not compromise the integrity of the trial process. The court upheld the conviction, confirming that the witness's credibility remained intact despite the cross-examination.

Orders