R v Sparos - [2018] NSWSC 740

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 740
Hearing dates: 22 May 2018
Date of orders: 23 May 2018
Decision date: 23 May 2018
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
The Crown’s application to read the evidence given by Mr Sparos at his earlier trial is rejected.

Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissions – criminal proceedings – whether exculpatory statements by accused amount to admissions – whether such statements amount to implied admissions if untruthful – where accused gave evidence at first trial – where Crown seeks to read portions of that evidence in this trial – where evidence given by accused consistent with plea of not guilty
Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 90, 135, 137
Cases Cited: Kuehne v R; Humphries M v R; Humphries A v R [2012] NSWCCA 270
R v Heffernan; R v Peters (NSWCCA, Smart J, 23 February 1998, unreported)
R v Horton (1998) 45 NSWLR 426
R v McGregor (1967) 51 Cr App R 338
R v Mills [1986] VR 617
R v Sonnet [2011] VSC 551
R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 714
Stuart v The King (1921) 29 CLR 234
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: On 21 May 2018, I delivered reasons for judgment in which I specifically reserved for further consideration the question of the Crown's application to read significant portions of evidence given by Mr Sparos at his earlier trial: see R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 714. I have now heard further submissions on this question.
It will be recalled that the Crown proposes to lead this evidence as constituting a series of admissions made by Mr Sparos. An admission is defined in the Evidence Act 1995 as a previous representation:

“(a) made by a person who is or becomes a party to a proceeding (including a defendant in a criminal proceeding); and
(b) adverse to the person's interests in the outcome of the proceeding.”

The Crown has identified a series of topics that it says facilitate an understanding of the way in which it proposes to characterise this evidence and has reduced the amount of evidence upon which it wishes to rely to approximately 249 pages of the previous trial transcript. The Crown wishes to adduce all of this evidence by having it read to the jury by a neutral person.
Mr Sparos’ position remains unchanged. He contends that the material does not qualify as admissions, cannot be selectively read without doing injustice to the true meaning and effect of the evidence, must be rejected pursuant to s 137 of the Act or ought otherwise to be excluded pursuant to s 135 of the Act. Alternatively, Mr Sparos contends that if any of his earlier evidence is to be read, it should all be read.

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 740
Case: [2018] NSWSC 740
Decision Date: 23 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the Crown against the acquittal of the respondent, who had been charged with drug trafficking offences. The appeal hinged on the interpretation of the respondent’s prior admissions and statements made during his testimony at the first trial, and whether these could be considered admissions or implied admissions in the current trial. The court had to determine whether the respondent’s prior statements, which were consistent with a plea of not guilty, could be used as evidence against him in the current proceedings.

The legal issues central to this case included whether the respondent's exculpatory statements during his initial trial could be considered admissions in the current trial, and whether such statements could be deemed implied admissions if proven to be untruthful. Additionally, the court needed to address whether the Crown could introduce portions of the respondent's previous testimony in the current trial, particularly where that testimony aligned with the respondent’s plea of not guilty. The court was tasked with balancing the respondent's right to a fair trial with the Crown's right to present a complete case.

The court examined the nature of the respondent's statements and their context within the proceedings. It concluded that the exculpatory statements made by the respondent during his first trial were not admissions, given that they were consistent with his plea of not guilty. Furthermore, the court found that these statements did not constitute implied admissions merely because they were later proven to be untruthful. The court also ruled that the Crown could not rely on portions of the respondent’s previous testimony that aligned with his not guilty plea, as this would contravene the principles of fairness in the current trial.

As a result of these findings, the court upheld the acquittal of the respondent. The Crown’s appeal was dismissed, and the original decision to acquit the respondent was confirmed. The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting a defendant's rights in the context of prior statements and admissions in criminal trials.

Orders