R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 34) - [2018] NSWSC 281

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 34) [2018] NSWSC 281
Hearing dates: 7 March 2018
Date of orders: 07 March 2018
Decision date: 07 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Bellew J
Decision:
See [19]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Cross-examination – Where it was put to the witness that he was a party to an attempted blackmail of the accused – Where some evidence of an unrelated allegation of forgery – Whether questions going to that issue substantially affected the credibility of the witness – Questions allowed
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: R v ATM [2000] NSWCCA 475
R v Beattie (1996) 40 NSWLR 155
R v Ronen [2004] NSWSC 1290
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 New South Wales (Crown)
Colin Daley Quinn (Accused)

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

Judgment – EX TEMPORE (REVISED)

In the course of cross-examination of Loren Gattellari (“the witness”) senior counsel for the accused asked a question in the following terms:

“Q. Sir, have you ever been involved in trying to forge Mr Medich's signature?”

The Crown objected to that general line of questioning on the grounds of relevance. Senior counsel for the accused submitted that it was relevant to the credibility of the witness. In the event that the questions are allowed, it can be reasonably anticipated that the witness will object to answering them, triggering the operation of s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) (“the Act”). In order to resolve the objection, some short background is necessary.
The witness is the son of Fortunato Gattellari (“Gattellari”) who is the Crown's principal witness and who has already given evidence. One of the allegations put to Gattellari in cross-examination was that he demanded a sum of $1 million from the accused following his (i.e. Gattellari's) arrest, and threatened that if the money was not paid (and on the evidence, it was not) he would implicate the accused in the murder of the deceased. Gattellari agreed that he sought $1 million from the accused. However, he denied that he sought to blackmail the accused in the manner alleged.
The witness is said to have been involved in conveying a message to the accused’s son seeking the money. Whilst he has generally admitted to conveying a message to that effect, he strenuously denied engaging in any attempt to blackmail the accused at the behest of Gattellari.
One of the many areas of cross-examination which went to Gattellari’s credit centred upon an allegation that he repeatedly stole large amounts of money from the accused. In that regard, he was asked questions about a conversation he had with Senad Kaminic (another witness who, on the Crown case, was a participant in the joint criminal enterprise to kill the deceased) on 17 March…

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. 34) 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 281
Decision Date: 07 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Ronald Edward Medich, the respondent, Ronald Edward Medich, was convicted of several charges, including assault, theft, and obtaining property by deception. The appellant, the Crown, sought to appeal against the trial judge's decision to disallow certain cross-examination questions posed to a key witness, which the appellant believed were relevant to the witness's credibility. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in disallowing certain questions put to the witness during cross-examination. The appellant argued that the questions were relevant to the witness's credibility, given that the witness had been implicated in an attempted blackmail of the accused, as well as an unrelated allegation of forgery. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that these questions had no bearing on the witness's credibility and were, in fact, prejudicial.

The High Court held that the trial judge had not erred in disallowing the questions. The court found that the questions, which went to the unrelated issue of the witness's alleged involvement in forgery, did not substantially affect the witness's credibility in relation to the charges against the respondent. The court further held that the questions were potentially prejudicial and did not contribute to the determination of the respondent's guilt or innocence. As such, the trial judge's decision to disallow the questions was upheld.

In light of the court's findings, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of Ronald Edward Medich was upheld. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders