R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 20) - [2017] NSWSC 186

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 20) [2017] NSWSC 186
Hearing dates: 6 March 2017
Date of orders: 06 March 2017
Decision date: 06 March 2017
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [47]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where accused made unsworn statement at conclusion of committal proceedings – Where statement of a self-serving nature – Whether statement admissible in accused’s trial
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Local Court Rules 2009 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Middleton v R (1998) 100 A Crim R 244
R v Pearce (1979) 69 Cr App R 365
Ratten v R [1972] AC 378
R v Rymer [2005] NSWCCA 310; (2005) 156 A Crim R 84
R v Wood [2008] NSWSC 30 October 2008, Barr J unreported
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)

On 27 September 2013, at the conclusion of the evidence in the accused’s committal proceedings, the presiding Magistrate expressed a conclusion that a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could find that the accused had committed the indictable offence of murder as well as the offence of intimidation. The Magistrate proceeded to address the accused in the following terms:

“Mr Medich, before you say anything in answer to the charge, you should know you do not have to say anything unless you want to. However, if you do say something it may be recorded and used against you at your trial. You should understand that if a promise of favourable treatment has been made to you if you make admissions as to your guilt, that promise cannot be relied upon. Similarly, you have nothing to fear from any threat that may have been made to you to persuade you to make any admission as to your guilt. However, even if you have received such threat or promise, anything you say now may still be used against you at your trial. Mr Medich, do you want to say anything in answer to the charge today?”

At the conclusion of those remarks the accused is recorded as stating, amongst other things:

“I'd like to make a statement.”

The accused then made a lengthy statement from the body of the court. Because of the issues which have arisen in relation to the admissibility of that statement, it is necessary for me to set it out in full. It was in the following terms:

“Thank you, your Honour. I would like to say something at last, despite all my court appearances I can say a few words of my own. I am not guilty of these offences.…

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. 20) 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 186
Decision Date: 06 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 20), the defendant was prosecuted for various serious criminal offences, including murder. The case came before the court following the defendant's unsworn statement made at the conclusion of the committal proceedings. The central issue before the court was whether this unsworn statement, which was self-serving in nature, could be admitted as evidence during the defendant's trial. The court needed to determine the admissibility of the defendant's statement, which was made without oath and could potentially prejudice the defendant in the eyes of the jury.

The court considered the principles of admissibility of evidence in criminal trials and whether the unsworn statement could be considered reliable and impartial. The defendant argued that the statement should be excluded as it was self-serving and potentially prejudicial. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the unsworn statement should be admitted as it was relevant to the issues in the case and could provide valuable insight into the defendant's version of events. After careful consideration of the law and the circumstances, the court found that the unsworn statement was indeed admissible as evidence. The court held that the unsworn statement could be considered if it was relevant to the issues in the case and could be relied upon by the jury.

The court's decision was based on the principle that the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials should not be strictly limited to sworn testimony. The court acknowledged that unsworn statements could be relevant and reliable, provided they were made voluntarily and without any undue influence. The court also noted that the potential prejudice caused by the self-serving nature of the statement could be mitigated by the jury's common sense and the opportunity to cross-examine the defendant. The court concluded that the unsworn statement could be admitted as evidence in the trial, subject to the defendant's right to a fair trial and the principles of natural justice.

The court's decision was significant as it clarified the admissibility of unsworn statements in criminal trials. The court's ruling provided guidance to legal practitioners and the judiciary on the admissibility of such statements, which could be relevant in future cases. The court's decision also emphasised the importance of ensuring a fair trial for the accused, while also recognising the need to admit relevant evidence that could assist in the determination of the case. The court's decision in this case will undoubtedly have implications for the admissibility of unsworn statements in future criminal trials in Australia.

Orders