R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 31) - [2018] NSWSC 248

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 31) [2018] NSWSC 248
Hearing dates: 1 March 2018
Date of orders: 01 March 2018
Decision date: 01 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [24]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Procedure – Juries – Application for discharge of jury following outburst from witness – Jury immediately directed to ignore outburst – Matter appropriately dealt with by direction – Application refused
Cases Cited: Qing An v R [2007] NSWCCA 53
Crofts v R (1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22
Gilbert v R (2000) 201 CLR 414; [2000] HCA 15
Mikael v R [2015] NSWCCA 294
R v Ahola (No 6) [2013] NSWSC 703
R v Bartle [2003] NSWCCA 329; (2003) 181 FLR 1
R v Bolan [1974] VR 849
R v Glennon (1992) 173 CLR 592; [1992] HCA 16
Texts Cited: Winsor v R (1866) LR 1 QB 390
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)

An application has been made by senior counsel for the accused for a discharge of the jury following the evidence given via Audio Visual Link by Paul Mathieson (“Mathieson”) yesterday. The application is opposed by the Crown.
In the course of cross-examination by senior counsel for the accused (at T1432) Mathieson gave a non-responsive answer to a question in which he asserted, inter alia, that the accused had stolen shares and money from him. The transcript makes it clear that I attempted to curtail Mathieson's answer, in response to which he addressed me with a raised voice. I directed the jury that they were to take no notice whatsoever of what had been said by Mathieson because it was non-responsive to the question which had been asked. There were further instances of Mathieson failing to respond to questions asked in cross-examination, which necessitated my intervention (see for example at T1433).
At the conclusion of his cross-examination (at T1434) it was put to Mathieson that he was prepared to say anything about the accused because he (Mathieson) held the accused responsible for losing a large sum of money. Having responded to that question by saying that it was "total lies", Mathieson took it upon himself to suggest to me that the question asked of him should be struck from the record. When the Crown then attempted to ask one question in re-examination, Mathieson interrupted before saying the following:

“You struck my comments, but you let this guy lie about me, and what happened. He's ruined my life for ten years, Mr Medich. He's had people try to kill me. I've had the FBI. I'm under armed guard and this guy just lies. He should be--"

The Crown Prosecutor…

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. 31) 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 248
Decision Date: 01 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an application by Ronald Edward Medich to discharge the jury following an outburst from a witness during the trial. The case involved serious criminal charges against the defendant, including charges of murder, attempted murder, and other related offences. The court was required to determine whether the outburst was so prejudicial that it warranted discharging the jury and ordering a new trial.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was whether the trial judge appropriately dealt with the witness's outburst. The court needed to consider whether the trial judge's immediate direction to the jury to ignore the outburst was sufficient to ensure that the trial remained fair. The court also had to consider whether discharging the jury would have been an appropriate remedy if the outburst was found to be prejudicial.

The court held that the trial judge appropriately dealt with the witness's outburst by immediately directing the jury to ignore it. The court found that this direction was sufficient to ensure that the trial remained fair and that discharging the jury would not have been an appropriate remedy. The court emphasised the importance of the trial judge's role in ensuring that the trial remains fair and that the jury's decision is based solely on the evidence presented in court. The court held that the trial judge's direction to the jury was an appropriate and effective way of dealing with the witness's outburst.

The court refused the application to discharge the jury. The court held that the trial judge appropriately dealt with the witness's outburst and that discharging the jury would not have been an appropriate remedy. The court emphasised the importance of the trial judge's role in ensuring that the trial remains fair and that the jury's decision is based solely on the evidence presented in court. The court found that the trial judge's direction to the jury was an appropriate and effective way of dealing with the witness's outburst.

Orders