District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lou TASICH [2012] NSWDC 96 Hearing dates: 13-15, 18-22, 25-26 June 2012 Decision date: 15 June 2012 Before: Knox SC DCJ Decision: Applications for stay of proceedings and judge alone trial are rejected.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - procedure - adjournment, stay of proceedings or order restraining proceedings - stay of proceedings - issue estoppel in criminal trials - prior findings on credibility: whether implicit in jury verdict - abuse of process - juries - judge alone trials - allegations against public officials - public confidence in justice system: jury verdict where prior inquisitorial proceedings Legislation Cited: Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986Cases Cited: Gilham v R [2007] NSWCCA 323; (2007) 73 NSWLR 308
Island Maritime Ltd v Filipowski [2006] HCA 30; (2006) 226 CLR 328
Mraz v R (No 2) (1956) 96 CLR 62
R v Storey (1978) 140 CLR 364
R v Belghar [2012] NSWCCA 86
Rogers v R [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251
R v GSR [2011] NSW DC 17; (2011) 12 DCLR (NSW) 193Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mr Lou Tasich (Accused)Representation: Mr P Wagstaff (Crown)
Mr G D Wendler (Accused)
NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Hermann & Green Solicitors (Accused)
File Number(s): 2009/00246101
Judgment
Application for pre-trial rulings
At the outset of the proceedings counsel for the Accused filed a Notice of Motion seeking:
(a) that the evidence sought by the Crown to be adduced against the accused be regarded as the subject of issue estoppel.
That was altered during the course of argument to seek, in the alternative, a stay of these proceedings as an abuse of process.
(b) that the trial of the accused be by judge-alone rather than a jury trial.
At the end of submissions that was no longer pressed.
I have rejected both applications. These are my reasons for that decision.
Indictment
On 13 June 2012, the accused was arraigned on an indictment, with the following counts:
1. On 19 September 2007, at Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, at a compulsory examination conducted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, gave false evidence in a material particular, namely, that at lunch meetings with Peter Coyte at which Wollongong City Council car parks were discussed, Peter Coyte had solicited a corrupt benefit from him, the said Lou Tasich knowing the statement to be false.
2. On 27 September 2007, at Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, at a compulsory examination conducted by the Independent Commission Against Corruption, gave false evidence in a material particular, namely, that he, in March 2007, had complained to Noreen Hay that Peter Coyte had sought a corrupt benefit from him, the said Lou Tasich knowing the statement to be false.
3. On 27 September 2007, at Sydney, in the State of New South Wales, at a compulsory examination conducted by the Independent Commission Against…
Continue reading R v Tasich
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- R v Tasich [2012] NSWDC 96
- Case
- [2012] NSWDC 96
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Tasich involved the respondent, who had previously been the subject of inquisitorial proceedings resulting in findings of fact adverse to him. These findings were made by a magistrate who concluded that the respondent was not a credible witness. The respondent was subsequently charged with criminal offences and faced a jury trial. The respondent sought a stay of the criminal proceedings on the basis of issue estoppel, arguing that the prior findings on his credibility were implicitly incorporated in the jury verdict in the inquisitorial proceedings. Additionally, he sought an order for a trial by a judge alone, rather than a jury, citing concerns about public confidence in the justice system following the earlier proceedings.
The court was required to determine whether the doctrine of issue estoppel applied in criminal trials and, if so, whether it extended to findings on the credibility of a witness. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the respondent's applications for a stay of proceedings or a judge alone trial were justified, taking into account the principles of abuse of process and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
The court found that the doctrine of issue estoppel does not apply in criminal trials to findings on the credibility of a witness, as such findings are not considered "issues" for the purposes of the doctrine. The court emphasised that the jury's role in assessing credibility is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system. Regarding the stay of proceedings, the court held that there was no abuse of process warranting a stay, as the inquisitorial proceedings and the criminal trial were distinct processes with different standards of proof and different outcomes. The court also rejected the application for a trial by a judge alone, finding that the concerns about public confidence did not justify departing from the usual practice of a jury trial. The court concluded that the respondent's applications were not well-founded and should be rejected.
The court dismissed the respondent's applications for a stay of proceedings and for a trial by a judge alone. The criminal proceedings against the respondent would proceed as scheduled, with a jury determining his guilt or innocence.
The court was required to determine whether the doctrine of issue estoppel applied in criminal trials and, if so, whether it extended to findings on the credibility of a witness. Furthermore, the court needed to consider whether the respondent's applications for a stay of proceedings or a judge alone trial were justified, taking into account the principles of abuse of process and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system.
The court found that the doctrine of issue estoppel does not apply in criminal trials to findings on the credibility of a witness, as such findings are not considered "issues" for the purposes of the doctrine. The court emphasised that the jury's role in assessing credibility is a fundamental aspect of the criminal justice system. Regarding the stay of proceedings, the court held that there was no abuse of process warranting a stay, as the inquisitorial proceedings and the criminal trial were distinct processes with different standards of proof and different outcomes. The court also rejected the application for a trial by a judge alone, finding that the concerns about public confidence did not justify departing from the usual practice of a jury trial. The court concluded that the respondent's applications were not well-founded and should be rejected.
The court dismissed the respondent's applications for a stay of proceedings and for a trial by a judge alone. The criminal proceedings against the respondent would proceed as scheduled, with a jury determining his guilt or innocence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Applications for stay of proceedings and judge alone trial are rejected.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.