R v Sparos - [2018] NSWSC 568

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 568
Hearing dates: 1 May 2018
Date of orders: 02 May 2018
Decision date: 02 May 2018
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) Subject to order (2), not being satisfied that the interests of justice so require, I decline to make the evidence of the known person available to Mr Sparos as the person charged with the offence concerned, or to his lawyers or to the Crown.
(2) Grant liberty to Mr Sparos and the Crown, if so advised, to apply to vary, amend or revoke order (1).

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – whether evidence given before Crime Commission should be provided to the parties in a criminal trial – whether interests of justice so require – where application opposed by known person – where evidence does not appear to contain exculpatory or inculpatory evidence – where submissions heard in absence of Crown and accused – application refused
Legislation Cited: Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW), s 45
Cases Cited: R v Francis [2004] NSWCCA 85; (2004) 145 A Crim R 233
R v Quami & Ors (No 11) [2016] NSWSC 252
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: NSW Crime Commission
Known Person
Representation:
Counsel:
R Bhalla (NSW Crime Commission)
P Lange (Known Person)
Solicitors:
NSW Crime Commission
Hope Lawyers (Known Person)

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

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: On 8 March 2018, Natalie Adams J issued a certificate pursuant to s 45(4) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 certifying that she considered that it may be desirable in the interests of justice that particular evidence given by a known person before the New South Wales Crime Commission be made available to the legal practitioners in these proceedings. It is now accepted that I should proceed, as the trial judge, to consider the question raised by s 45(5) of that Act. That provision provides as follows:

“(5)    If:
(a)    the Commission makes evidence available to a court in accordance with subsection (4), and
(b)    the court, after examining the evidence, is satisfied that the interests of justice so require,

the court may make the evidence available to the person charged with the offence concerned or to an Australian legal practitioner representing the person and to the prosecutor.”

The evidence in question was given by a known person to the Crime Commission in the form of an interview on 17 September 2012. A transcript of the evidence has been provided to the Court in accordance with the certificate issued by her Honour. I have examined that evidence. I am not satisfied that the interests of justice require that the evidence should be made available to Mr Sparos, the person charged with the offence concerned, or to his lawyers or to the Crown. My reasons for coming to that view are set out below.
First, there is currently no suggestion that the known person is likely to be a witness in the trial. Mr Sparos has indicated that…

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 568
Case: [2018] NSWSC 568
Decision Date: 02 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sparos, the respondent, a known person, sought disclosure of evidence given before the Crime Commission, which was not to be used in the criminal trial against him. The application for disclosure was opposed by the Crown, and the matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the interests of justice required the evidence to be provided to the parties in the criminal trial. This decision hinged on the circumstances surrounding the application, including the absence of the Crown and the accused during the hearing of the submissions, and whether the evidence contained any exculpatory or inculpatory information.

The court considered the established legal principles regarding the disclosure of evidence given before a Crime Commission. It was noted that there was a strong policy in favour of keeping such evidence confidential, unless there were exceptional circumstances that warranted disclosure. The court found that the respondent had not demonstrated that the interests of justice required disclosure in this case. The application was heard in the absence of both the Crown and the respondent, which was considered an irregularity. Additionally, the court observed that the evidence did not appear to contain any information that would be relevant to the trial, either to incriminate or exculpate the respondent. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice process, and the need to balance the interests of justice with the protection of sensitive information obtained through the Crime Commission.

Based on the circumstances presented, the court refused the application for disclosure. The judge concluded that the interests of justice did not require the evidence to be provided to the parties in the criminal trial. The court highlighted the importance of following proper procedures and ensuring that all parties are present when submissions are heard. The decision reinforces the principle that disclosure of evidence from a Crime Commission is not automatic and requires a compelling justification. The court's ruling in this case provides guidance for future applications involving the disclosure of such evidence.

Orders