Regina v Patsalis and Spathis [No 5]

[1999] NSWSC 745

CITATION:	Regina v Patsalis & Spathis [No 5] [1999] NSWSC 745 revised - 27/09/99
CURRENT JURISDICTION:	Criminal Division
FILE NUMBER(S):	70002/97; 70200/97
HEARING DATE(S):	28 June 1999 - 30 June 1999 2 July 1999 5 July 1999 - 7 July 1999 12 July 1999 - 14 July 1999 19 July 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 July 1999
PARTIES :	Regina v Michael Patsalis Alexios Spathis
JUDGMENT OF:	Kirby J

COUNSEL :	P Power (Crown) M Macgregor QC (Patsalis) D Campbell (Spathis)
SOLICITORS:	K Roots (Crown) Coustas & Co (Patsalis) Hancock Alldis (Spathis)
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE; Application to lead evidence re custody of accused
DECISION:	See para 4

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

KIRBY J

Tuesday 20 July 1999

70002/97 - REGINA v MICHAEL PATSALIS
70200/97 - REGINA v ALEXIOS SPATHIS

JUDGMENT (On application to lead evidence relating to custody of Mr Spathis (refer page 600 of transcript)) [No 5]

1   HIS HONOUR: Mr Campbell, on behalf of Mr Spathis, has sought to lead from Detective Jacob evidence concerning instructions given by Detective Jacob to the Station Sergeant in relation to the custody of Mr Spathis. These instructions were given at the conclusion of the record of interview. They were given after Mr Spathis had repeatedly said to Detective Jacob that he was in fear of Mr Patsalis at the time he performed various acts, and performed those acts by reason of that fear. Detective Jacob apparently gave instructions that Mr Spathis was to be placed in protective custody so that there would be separation between Mr Spathis and Mr Patsalis.

2   Counsel for Mr Patsalis objects to this evidence. He objects to the revelation of the fact that his client, and indeed Mr Spathis, were placed in custody, although the Crown points out, and I think it is the fact, that the jury may well conclude that was a necessary consequence of their arrest.

3   However, it seems to me that the opinion of this officer, having heard Mr Spathis' version, does not go to any real issue. If it does have relevance, in my judgment, it is so slight as to be substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might be unfairly prejudicial to a party, namely, the general revelations of what happened immediately after.

4   For that reason I reject the evidence.

**********

Last Modified: 09/27/1999