R v Sigadula - [2024] NSWDC 664

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sigadula [2024] NSWDC 664
Hearing dates: 12 August 2024
Date of orders: 13 August 2024
Decision date: 13 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
Application for leave to inspect documents produced on subpoena, issued without leave refused.

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 295 – 299D

Cases Cited:
KS v Veitch (No 2) [2012] NSWCCA 266
NAR v PPC1 [2013] NSWCCA 25
PPC v Stylianou [2018] NSWCCA 300

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Bek Sigadula (the Accused)
Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr P Massey (the Accused)
Mr A Lynch (the Crown)
Solicitors:
Mr M Unwin (the Accused)
Mr N Mitchell (the Crown)
Ms R Gilbert (Principal Protected Confider)

File Number(s): 2021/0125352
Publication restriction: Pursuant to s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 the name of the complainant or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant, shall not be published.

JUDGMENT on notice of motion

On 12 August 2024 the accused was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the following two Counts on the Indictment:-

On 16 April 2021, at Kearsley in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with DP, without her consent, and knowing that DP was not consenting to the sexual intercourse.

On 1 May 2021, at Kearsley in the State of New South Wales, did have sexual intercourse with DP, without her consent, and knowing that DP was not consenting to the sexual intercourse.

Before empanelment of the jury the accused was given leave to file in court a Notice of Motion seeking the following prayers for relief:-

“(1) The Court grant leave to the Accused pursuant to s298 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (“the CPA”) to compel Wyong Hospital and Maitland Hospital to produce by subpoena all documents as set out in the subpoenae marked as Annexures A and B of the affidavit of Matthew Unwin sworn 12 August 2024 (“the documents”).
(2) That the Court Grant leave to the accused’s legal representatives to inspect documents.
(3) Such other order as the Honourable Court deems fit.”

The accused relied on the affidavit of his solicitor, Mr Unwin sworn on 12 August 2024 which annexed relevant documents including a copy of the Crown case statement, and witness statements of the complainant dated 3 May 2021, 1 June 2023, 29 June 2023, and 5 August 2024. Also annexed were statements by the complainant’s mother dated 4 June 2023, a statement of Constable G Trudgett dated 8 June 2021 and an Ambulance medical record.
The complainant is the estranged wife of the accused and the following chronology of relevant events assists in determining the issues to be resolved on this application:-

December 2015 the accused and complainant commenced a relationship.

26 October 2016 a son, Isaac born.

15 May 2018 a son, Ezekial born.

24 June 2018 the accused and complainant marry.

29 September 2019 a daughter, Elizabeth born.

The accused issued…

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 Sigadula

Details

AGLC: R v Sigadula [2024] NSWDC 664
Case: [2024] NSWDC 664
Decision Date: 13 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sigadula, the applicant, an individual charged with serious criminal offences, sought leave to inspect certain documents that had been produced on a subpoena issued under the Crimes (Forensic Procedures) Act 2009 (NSW). The application was made to the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the accused challenged the decision of the Magistrate's Court to refuse leave to inspect the documents. The primary legal issues for determination were whether the application was made in the interests of justice and whether the applicant had satisfied the statutory criteria for leave to inspect.

The court considered the statutory provisions and case law on the interpretation of the interest of justice and the criteria for granting leave to inspect documents. The applicant argued that the documents were necessary to assess the reliability of key evidence against him and to prepare his defence. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the documents contained sensitive and confidential information, the disclosure of which could prejudice ongoing investigations and the administration of justice. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient connection between the documents and his defence, nor had he shown that the documents were necessary for his defence. The court held that the decision of the Magistrate's Court was correct and refused the application for leave to inspect the documents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to inspect documents produced on subpoena, issued without leave refused.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Sigadula [2024] NSWDC 664
Hearing dates:	12 August 2024
Date of orders:	13 August 2024
Decision date:	13 August 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	Application for leave to inspect documents produced on subpoena, issued without leave refused.
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Procedure Act 1986, ss 295 – 299D
Cases Cited:	KS v Veitch (No 2) [2012] NSWCCA 266 NAR v PPC1 [2013] NSWCCA 25 PPC v Stylianou [2018] NSWCCA 300
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	Bek Sigadula (the Accused) Director of Public Prosecutions (the Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr P Massey (the Accused) Mr A Lynch (the Crown) Solicitors: Mr M Unwin (the Accused) Mr N Mitchell (the Crown) Ms R Gilbert (Principal Protected Confider)
File Number(s):	2021/0125352
Publication restriction:	Pursuant to s578A of the Crimes Act 1900 the name of the complainant or any matter which is likely to lead to the identification of the complainant, shall not be published.