R v Sidaros (No 2) - [2019] ACTSC 348

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Sidaros (No 2)
Citation:	[2019] ACTSC 348
Hearing Date(s):	19 and 20 November 2019
DecisionDate:	20 November 2019
Before:	Murrell CJ
Decision:	Application dismissed. Evidence admissible under ss 138 and 90 of the Evidence Act.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – Whether representations made by the accused should be excluded under ss 138 and/or 90 – Exclusion of improperly obtained evidence – Representations made to police following caution – When representations made after police provided accused with statement of facts and informed accused that they will not question him
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) ss 12, 19, 27(3)(d), 28B, 117, 318(2) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 23V Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 44, 45A, 312, 404 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT) ss 90, 138
Cases Cited:	R v Sidaros [2019] ACTSC 177 Sidaros v The Queen [2020] ACTCA 11
Parties:	Axel Sidaros (Applicant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel I McLachlan with S Pararajasingham (Applicant) T Hickey (Respondent)
Solicitors Kamy Saeedi Law (Applicant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	SCC 312 of 2018 SCC 313 of 2018

Murrell CJ

The Indictment

The applicant is to be tried for the following offences that occurred on 28 June 2018:

(a)With unknown persons, attempt to murder Peter Zdravkovic (the complainant), contrary to s 12 of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (Crimes Act) (by virtue of ss 44 and 45A of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code));
(b)With unknown persons, intentionally inflict grievous bodily harm on the complainant, contrary to s 19 of the Crimes Act (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code);
(c)With unknown persons, attempt to damage property at 20 Carter Crescent, Calwell with intent to endanger the life of another (arson), contrary to s 117 of the Crimes Act (by virtue of ss 44 and 45A Criminal Code);
(d)In the company of unknown persons and while armed, enter or remain in the building at 20 Carter Crescent with intent to damage the property by arson (aggravated burglary), contrary to s 312 of the Criminal Code (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code);
(e)With unknown persons, intentionally or recklessly damage a Mercedes vehicle, a BMW vehicle and a Holden vehicle by fire, contrary to s 404 of the Criminal Code (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code);
(f)With unknown persons, intentionally discharge loaded firearms so as to cause another person to reasonably apprehend for their safety, contrary to s 27(3)(d) of the Crimes Act (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code);
(g)Dishonestly ride in a motor vehicle that had been dishonestly taken, contrary to s 318(2) of the Criminal Code; and
(h)With unknown persons, recklessly discharge a firearm at a building, 38 Carter Crescent, Calwell, contrary to s 28B of the Crimes Act (by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code).

The Application

By an application made…

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.

Continue reading R v Sidaros (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Sidaros (No 2) [2019] ACTSC 348
Case: [2019] ACTSC 348
Decision Date: 20 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Sidaros (No 2) involved the accused, Sidaros, and the prosecution. The dispute centred around whether certain representations made by Sidaros to the police should be excluded from evidence under sections 138 and/or 90 of the Evidence Act. The case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The legal issues for the court to determine included whether the representations made by Sidaros to the police were improperly obtained and thus inadmissible, and whether they should be excluded under the relevant sections of the Evidence Act. The court had to assess the circumstances under which the representations were made, specifically whether they were made after Sidaros was provided with a statement of facts and informed that he would not be questioned further by the police.

The court ruled that the evidence was admissible under sections 138 and 90 of the Evidence Act. The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the timeline and the context in which the representations were made. The court found that the representations were not obtained improperly, as they were made after Sidaros was provided with a statement of facts and informed that he would not be questioned further. Therefore, the court dismissed the application to exclude the evidence.

The final orders of the court were that the application to exclude the evidence was dismissed, and the evidence was deemed admissible under sections 138 and 90 of the Evidence Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed. Evidence admissible under ss 138 and 90 of the Evidence Act.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.