R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 21)

[2017] NSWSC 199

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 21) [2017] NSWSC 199
Hearing dates:	7 March 2017
Date of orders:	07 March 2017
Decision date:	07 March 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Bellew J
Decision:	See [5]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where answers to questions put to witness tended to prove the commission of an offence – Where objection was taken to answering the questions – Whether in the interests of justice for the evidence to be given
Legislation Cited:	Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	R v Medich (No 12) [2017] NSWSC 60
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)

1. The Crown has re-called Fortunato Gattellari (“Gattellari”) to give evidence in its case and proposes to lead evidence from him regarding statements allegedly made by him at a meeting of a number of persons which took place at the Cooma Correctional Centre. The evidence sought to be led from Gattellari arises from evidence given by another witness, Shayne Hatfield, concerning statements allegedly made by Gattellari at that meeting.

2. In circumstances where Gattellari is present in Court, I do not propose to further detail the nature of the evidence which is sought to be adduced from him. Gattellari's general position in relation to these issues is set out in a previous judgment: R v Medich (No 12) [2017] NSWSC 60 at [2] and following.

3. The answers to questions asked of him in respect of this issue (and related issues) may tend to prove that Gattellari has committed an offence. In those circumstances, s. 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (“the Act”) is again engaged. Previously when this issue arose, Gattellari raised an objection to answering such questions. However, when the provisions of s. 128 were explained to him, he indicated that he would answer the questions willingly. I informed him on that occasion that I would, in those circumstances, issue him with a certificate under s. 128. It should be noted that Gattellari had received the benefit of legal advice in relation to these issues.

4. Part way through his earlier evidence, Gattellari revised his stated position. He confirmed his objection to answering the questions, and indicated that he would not answer them willingly. Having heard submissions, I concluded that it was in the interests of justice that Gattellari be compelled to answer the questions. I concluded that I would grant him a certificate under s 128, the nature of which was again explained to him: R v Medich (No 12) (supra).

5. Gattellari has indicated to me today that he objects to answering the questions, and will not do so willingly. For the same reasons as those previously stated, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence be given: R v Medich (No 12) at [18] and following. In those circumstances, Gattellari will be compelled to answer the questions. I will, at the conclusion of his evidence, grant him a certificate pursuant to s. 128 of the Act.

**********