R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 29) - [2018] NSWSC 133

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 29) [2018] NSWSC 133
Hearing dates: 15 February 2018
Date of orders: 15 February 2018
Decision date: 15 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [27]

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – Accused charged with murder – Evidence given by accomplice – Where accomplice recently charged with conspiracy to extort money from accused – Where counsel for accused sought to cross-examine witness in relation to those allegations – Where witness objected to answering questions – Whether in the interests of justice that the evidence be given – Witness compelled to give the evidence
WORDS AND PHRASES – “interests of justice”
Legislation Cited: Coroners Act 2009 (NSW)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v Medich (No. 12) [2017] NSWSC 60
R v Ronen & Ors [2004] NSWSC 1290
Rich v Attorney General for New South Wales & Ors [2013] NSWCA 419
X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 29
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Ronald Edward Medich (Accused)
Representation: Counsel:
Ms S Harris and Ms G Wright (Crown)
Mr W Terracini SC and Ms M Curry (Accused)
Mr A Hughes (Applicant)
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)

The accused Ronald Edward Medich is presently standing trial for the murder of Michael McGurk, and for the intimidation of Mr McGurk's wife, Kimberley McGurk.
The Crown's principal witness is Fortunato Gattellari (“Gattellari”) who is presently serving a term of imprisonment, having previously pleaded guilty to the murder of Mr McGurk. He has been giving evidence in the Crown case for a number of days.
In late 2016 Gattellari was charged by the police with further offences for which he is to stand trial in the District Court in October of this year. He is to be jointly indicted with his brother, Frank Gattellari, on two counts. The first alleges that between 1 January 2013 and 20 December 2013, they did conspire with each other and Robert Harley McCarthy, to defraud the accused. The second alleges that between 23 December 2013 and 31 July 2014 Gattellari, his brother, Shayne Desmond Hatfield and Linda Christina Monfrooy conspired with each other defraud the accused.
It is not necessary to detail, at any length, the allegations against Gattellari which will be the subject of that trial. It is sufficient for present purposes to note that the Crown case against him is that he allegedly entered into agreements with his co-conspirators to demand payment of a sum of money from the accused, in return for which he (Gattellari) would agree to give evidence in these current proceedings in a manner that would assist the accused to avoid conviction. I stress that those are, of course, allegations, which Gattellari has made clear will be defended.
Towards the end of Gattellari’s evidence-in-chief, the Crown Prosecutor, having…

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. 29) 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: [2018] NSWSC 133
Decision Date: 15 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Edward Medich was charged with the murder of a man in Sydney. During the trial, the prosecution called an accomplice as a witness. The defence counsel sought to cross-examine this witness regarding a recent charge of conspiracy to extort money from the accused. The witness objected to answering questions on this matter. The court had to decide whether it was in the interests of justice to compel the witness to answer these questions.

The central issue was whether the trial judge should allow the defence to cross-examine the witness about the extortion charge. The court had to weigh the relevance of the charge to the witness's credibility and the potential impact on the fairness of the trial. The court noted that evidence regarding a witness's credibility was pertinent to the trial's fairness. Furthermore, the witness's credibility was crucial, given their status as an accomplice. The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to compel the witness to answer questions about the extortion charge.

The court held that compelling the witness to answer questions about the extortion charge was necessary in the interests of justice. The witness's credibility was critical, and the defence's ability to challenge it was fundamental to a fair trial. The court found that the evidence was relevant and necessary to determine the truth. Consequently, the trial judge was directed to compel the witness to answer questions regarding the extortion charge.

The final order of the court was that the witness should be compelled to give evidence about the extortion charge. This decision ensured that the trial remained fair and just, with all relevant evidence being considered.

Orders