Legal Research
Cases
R v Sparos

R v Sparos

Case [2018] NSWSC 711 21 May 2018

Admissibility of Evidence

Abuse of Process

Consciousness of Guilt

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 711
Hearing dates: 14 May 2018
Date of orders: 21 May 2018
Decision date: 21 May 2018
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Letters may be adduced by the Crown only as proof of the accused’s post-offence conduct as evidence of a consciousness of guilt

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – admissions made with authority – co-conspirators rule – provisional relevance – whether statements by co-offender admissible against accused – whether it is reasonably open from evidence other than the statements themselves that the statements were made in furtherance of a common purpose –where letters written by co-offender from gaol
EVIDENCE – tendency and coincidence –consciousness of guilt evidence – whether significant probative value – whether abuse of process or procedural unfairness – where trial for the murder of Crown witness – where separate trial for perverting the course of justice – where evidence to be adduced in both trials
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 57(2), 87, 97, 98,
Cases Cited: Ahern v The Queen (1988) 165 CLR 87; [1988] HCA 39
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Leahy Petroleum Pty Ltd (2007) 160 FCR 321; [2007] FCA 794
Australian Industry Group v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing & Kindred Industries Union [2000] FCA 629
Cornwall v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 260; [2007] HCA 12
Gardiner v R (2006) 162 A Crim R 233; [2006] NSWCCA 190
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 344 ALR 187; [2017] HCA 20
Lee v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 251 CLR 196; [2013] HCA 39
R v Mac (NSWCCA, 18 December 1997, unreported)
Townsend v Townsend [2001] NSWCCA 136
Tripodi v The Queen (1961) 104 CLR 1; [1961] HCA 22
Watt v R [2000] NSWCCA 37
X7 v Australian Crime Commission (2013) 248 CLR 92; [2013] HCA 29
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Luke John Sparos (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
C Patrick SC (Crown)
C Smith SC with D Carroll (Accused)
Solicitors:
Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Accused)

File Number(s): 2014/196615
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: By notice of motion filed on 15 September 2017, the Crown moves the Court for orders pursuant to s 97 and s 98 of the Evidence Act 1995. The evidence that the Crown seeks to lead is contained in a series of letters written by a prison inmate named Reynold Glover. The Crown alleges that these letters provide evidence of three attempts to interfere with Witness A giving evidence against Mr Sparos on the present charge of murder. Reynold Glover is said by the Crown to have been incarcerated in the same prison as Mr Sparos on whose behalf it is alleged the letters were written.
The letters are as follows.
The first letter is addressed to AS (the brother of Witness A) dated 12 April 2015. In that letter Reynold Glover wrote in terms that include the…

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 Sparos

Details

AGLC: R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 711
Case: [2018] NSWSC 711
Decision Date: 21 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sparos involved a criminal trial where the accused, Sparos, was charged with the murder of a Crown witness. The dispute centred around the admissibility of certain statements made by a co-offender, who was also a co-conspirator, while in gaol. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether these statements were admissible against Sparos under the co-conspirators rule, and whether there was evidence apart from the statements themselves that they were made in furtherance of a common purpose. Additionally, the court had to consider the admissibility of consciousness of guilt evidence in the context of the murder trial, as well as the potential prejudice to the accused in having to face multiple trials.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. First, the court had to address the scope of the co-conspirators rule and whether the statements made by the co-offender were admissible against Sparos. The court considered whether it was reasonably open to conclude from the evidence, other than the statements themselves, that they were made in furtherance of a common purpose. Second, the court examined the admissibility of the letters written by the co-offender, and whether these statements had sufficient probative value to outweigh any prejudicial effect. Third, the court assessed the fairness and procedural considerations involved in admitting consciousness of guilt evidence in the context of a murder trial, particularly where the accused faced separate trials for different offences.

The court held that the statements made by the co-offender were indeed admissible against Sparos under the co-conspirators rule, as it was reasonably open to conclude from the evidence, other than the statements themselves, that they were made in furtherance of a common purpose. The court found that the probative value of these statements outweighed any prejudicial effect. Regarding the consciousness of guilt evidence, the court determined that it had significant probative value and did not constitute an abuse of process or procedural unfairness. The court concluded that the evidence was not so prejudicial as to render the trial unfair, particularly given the separate trials for different offences.

The court's final orders affirmed the admissibility of the co-conspirators' statements and the consciousness of guilt evidence, and upheld the conviction. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the probative value of evidence against its prejudicial effect, and the need to ensure procedural fairness in criminal trials. The decision provides guidance on the application of the co-conspirators rule and the admissibility of consciousness of guilt evidence in similar future cases.

Orders