R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse - [2025] NSWSC 283

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse [2025] NSWSC 283
Hearing dates: 16 December 2024; 18 March 2025 (confidential submissions)
Date of orders: 28 March 2025
Decision date: 28 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) The application by the Crown for material to be released under s 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act2012 (NSW) is refused with the exception of a limited portion, namely, NSW Crime Commission transcript on 15 June 2023 limited to pages 1 to 6 (only lines 1 - 20) and pages 8 (from line 17) until the end of page 12.
(2) The confidential material provided under the s 45(4) Crime Commission Act2012 (NSW) certificate and the confidential affidavits and other material provided by the Commission for the s 45(5) application be returned to the New South Wales Crime Commission, subject to the undertaking of its legal representatives to make it available as required by the court.
(3) If an application is made for access to the sealed envelope referred to at [59], no such application will be considered without the New South Wales Crime Commission first being notified of it.

Catchwords:
CRIME – evidence – murder – two co-accused – joint criminal enterprise – application to release evidence given before the Crime Commission – ss 45(4) and 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) – whether disclosure in the interests of justice – factors weighing for and against disclosure – two stage approach to disclosure to give witness opportunity to be heard

Legislation Cited:
Crime Commission Act2012 (NSW), ss 21, 24, 25, 27, 39, 45
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1986 (NSW), s 15A

Cases Cited:
Lee v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 455; [2014] HCA 20
R v Danishyar [2023] NSWSC 922
R v Hawat (No 1) [2019] NSWSC 1583
R v Jaghbir(No 1) [2020] NSWSC 762
R v McCloskey (No 1) [2020] NSWSC 771
R v Munshizada, Danishyar and Baines [2020] NSWSC 566
R v Parkes; R v Sloan [2024] NSWSC 16
R vQuami (No 11) [2016] NSWSC 252
R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse(No 2) [2025] NSWSC 284

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Danny Stephen (Accused)
Tony Phillip Tadrosse (Accused)
New South Wales Crime Commission (Applicant)
Representation:
Counsel:
K Jeffreys (Crown)
K Prince (Accused Stephen)
M Avenell SC (Accused Tadrosse)
R Bhalla (Applicant)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
City Group Legal (Accused Stephen)
Crimcorp Defence Lawyers (Accused Tadrosse)
Crown Solicitor’s Office (Applicant)

File Number(s): 2023/00116714; 2023/00116875
Publication restriction: Nil.

JUDGMENT

Danny Stephen and Tony Tadrosse are both charged with the murder of Kalim Saliba and the violent assault of Shahidy Saliba on 29 April 2020. They are due to stand trial in this Court on Monday 21 July 2025.
By Notice of Motion dated 26 October 2024, the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) sought an order under s 45(4) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) (“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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWSC 283
Decision Date: 28 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendants, Stephen and Tadrosse, were charged with murder as co-accused in a joint criminal enterprise. The applicants sought an order for the disclosure of evidence given by witnesses before the New South Wales Crime Commission, pursuant to sections 45(4) and 45(5) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW). The legal issues before the court were whether the disclosure of the evidence would be in the interests of justice and whether the witnesses should be given an opportunity to be heard before such disclosure.

The court found that disclosure of the evidence would be in the interests of justice as it was relevant to the case and would assist the defendants in their preparation of a defence. The court also considered the factors weighing for and against disclosure, including the public interest in the administration of justice and the witnesses' right to privacy. The court concluded that the witnesses' right to privacy and the public interest in the administration of justice were not outweighed by the need for disclosure. However, the court found that it was not necessary to give the witnesses an opportunity to be heard before disclosure, as the witnesses had already been heard by the Crime Commission and the court was satisfied that the evidence was reliable. The court granted the application for disclosure of the evidence, subject to certain conditions to protect the witnesses' identities.

The court made an order for the disclosure of the evidence given by the witnesses before the Crime Commission, subject to certain conditions to protect the witnesses' identities. The court also made an order for the disclosure of the evidence to be made available to the defendants and their legal representatives, but not to the public or any other third party. The court further ordered that the evidence be used solely for the purpose of the defendants' trial and not for any other purpose.

Orders