R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 30) - [2018] NSWSC 206

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 30) [2018] NSWSC 206
Hearing dates: 22 February 2018
Date of orders: 22 February 2018
Decision date: 22 February 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [74]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Re-examination – Scope of re-examination – Whether evidence sought to be adduced by the Crown arose from cross-examination – Whether evidence relevant – Whether evidence should be excluded on the basis that its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice – Evidence admitted
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Hadid & Anor v Australis Media Ltd & Anor (No 14) (Supreme Court (NSW), Sperling J, 5 November 1996, unrep)
IMM v R (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
Papakosmas v R (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
R v Chambers (1848) 3 Cox CC 92
R v Lavery (No 2) (1979) 20 SASR 430
R v Yates [2002] NSWCCA 520
Schipp v Cameron & Ors (No 2) (Supreme Court (NSW), Einstein J, 8 October 1997, unrep)
Wentworth v Rogers (No 10) (1987) 8 NSWLR 398
Seven Network Ltd v News Ltd (No 8) [2005] FCA 1348; (2005) 224 ALR 317
Texts Cited: Cross on Evidence - The Hon. J D Heydon QC
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)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Colin Daley Quinn (Accused)

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

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

Towards the conclusion of the cross-examination of the witness Fortunato Gattellari (“Gattellari”), the Crown foreshadowed an intention to elicit, in re-examination and/or through the evidence in chief of another witness or witnesses, evidence which it submitted arose from that cross-examination. The evidence is contained in a series of intercepted telephone conversations and related documents. Senior counsel for the accused objected to the Crown leading such evidence.
Before dealing with the issues which now arise, there are three matters of common ground which ought be noted.
Firstly, there is no dispute that an organisation known as Elite Cranes is associated with a person by the name of Mick Gatto (“Gatto”). Although the precise nature of Gatto's association with Elite Cranes is not clear on the evidence, that is of no consequence. Secondly, Matt Thomas (“Thomas”) is an associate of Gatto and may be colloquially described as Gatto's "offsider". Thirdly, the evidence which is now sought to be adduced by the Crown was served well prior to the commencement of the trial, and was therefore known to those representing the accused when Gattellari was cross-examined.
In order to put the present issues into context, it is necessary to give a short overview, before going to particular aspects of Gattellari’s cross-examination.
The accused is charged with the murder of Michael McGurk, and the intimidation of Mr McGurk’s…

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. 30) 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 206
Decision Date: 22 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald Edward Medich was charged with murder and stood before the High Court of Australia. The nature of the dispute involved the scope of re-examination of witnesses by the prosecution and whether certain evidence could be adduced. The court was required to determine if the evidence sought by the Crown arose from the cross-examination, if it was relevant, and if it should be excluded on the basis that its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.

The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the rules governing the scope of re-examination in criminal trials. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the evidence proposed by the Crown was relevant and whether it should be excluded if it risked causing unfair prejudice to the defendant. The court was also tasked with determining whether the evidence sought arose from the cross-examination and thus was within the permissible scope of re-examination.

The court held that the evidence in question arose from the cross-examination, and therefore it was within the permissible scope of re-examination. The court further found that the evidence was relevant and that its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. As a result, the evidence was admitted. The High Court's decision clarified the scope of re-examination in criminal trials and established that evidence arising from cross-examination could be adduced during re-examination, provided it was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial. This ruling provided guidance for future cases involving the scope of re-examination and the admissibility of evidence in criminal trials.

Orders