R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse (No 3) - [2025] NSWSC 823

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse (No 3) [2025] NSWSC 823
Hearing dates: 22 July 2025
Date of orders: 22 July 2025 and 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: N Adams J
Decision:
(1) Mrs Shahidy Saliba is to give evidence by audio-visual link.
(2) That a view be held in this matter on a date to be advised.
(3) The statements by Mr Tadrosse to the receptionist at “Smile Concepts” on 28 April 2020 are admissible.
(4) The statements by Mr Tadrosse to the Coronavirus Helpline on 29 April 2020 are admissible.

Catchwords:
EVIDENCE – application to exclude evidence – s 137 Evidence Act – whether evidence as to expectation of financial gain is prejudicial – whether evidence of lies can be admitted as proof of consciousness of guilt – whether view warranted – whether evidence can be given by audio-visual link

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 18, 98
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 53, 55, 137
Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act1998 (NSW), s 5B

Cases Cited:
Cavanagh v R; McIvor v R; O’Keefe v R [2023] NSWCCA 164
Edwards v R [2022] NSWCCA 22
Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63
Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72
IMM v The Queen (2016) 257 CLR 300; [2016] HCA 14
Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297; [1999] HCA 37
R v Burton [2013] NSWCCA 335; 237 A Crim R 238
R v Ciantar (2006) 16 VR 26; [2006] VSCA 263
R v SJRC [2007] NSWCCA 142
R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse(No 2) [2025] NSWSC 284
R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse(No 4) [2025] NSWSC 824
R v Tortell(No 5) [2019] NSWSC 1665
RJ v R [2025] NSWCCA 68
Smith v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650; [2001] HCA 50
The Queen v Bauer (a pseudonym) (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Danny Stephen (Accused)
Tony Phillip Tadrosse (Accused)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr E Balodis (Crown)
Mr K Prince (Accused Stephen)
Ms M Avenell SC (Accused Tadrosse)
Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
City Group Legal (Accused Stephen)
Crimcorp Defence Lawyers (Accused Tadrosse)

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

JUDGMENT

Tony Tadrosse and Danny Stephen both stand charged with the murder of Kalim Saliba (contrary to s 18(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)) and the assault with intent to rob Shahidy Saliba with wounding whilst being armed (contrary to s 98 of the Crimes Act).
On 29 April 2020, at about 12:15am, 86-year-old Kalim Saliba and his 83-year-old wife Shahidy Saliba were watching television in their home in Cherrybrook when, on the Crown case, one or two persons entered their home to rob them. There is no dispute that Mr Saliba was killed by…

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 (No 3) 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 823
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stephen; R v Tadrosse (No 3), the applicants were convicted of conspiracy to murder and were seeking to exclude certain evidence from their trial. The nature of the dispute involved the admissibility of evidence related to financial gain expectations and the use of an audio-visual link for witness testimony. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether evidence pertaining to the expectation of financial gain was prejudicial under section 137 of the Evidence Act, if lies could be admitted as proof of consciousness of guilt, and whether the view of the trial judge regarding the admissibility of evidence was warranted. Additionally, the court examined whether evidence could be presented through an audio-visual link.

The court found that evidence about the expectation of financial gain was not necessarily prejudicial and could be relevant to the conspiracy charge. Regarding the admission of lies as proof of consciousness of guilt, the court determined that such evidence could be admitted if it directly implicated the accused in the crime. The court also upheld the trial judge's view on the admissibility of the evidence, finding it to be a correct application of the law. Finally, the court held that evidence could indeed be given by audio-visual link, provided it did not compromise the fairness of the trial.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence in question was admissible and that the convictions of the applicants were upheld. The audio-visual link for witness testimony was deemed acceptable, subject to the maintenance of trial fairness.

Orders