Skrijel v Mengler

[2003] VSC 113

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 5446 of 1993

MEHMED SKRIJEL	Plaintiff
v
JOHN CARL MENGLER	Firstnamed Defendant
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA	Secondnamed Defendant
GARY WESTON COOK	Thirdnamed Defendant
STATE OF VICTORIA	Fourthnamed Defendant

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	9 April 2003
DATE OF RULING:	9 April 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Skrijel v Mengler and ors
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 113

---

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	In Person
For the Firstnamed Defendant	Mr M. Tovey QC with Mr P. Marzella	Hardham Dalton & Sunberg
For the Secondnamed Defendant	Mr B. Walters SC with Mr K. Mueller	Australian Government Solicitors
For the Thirdnamed Defendant	Mr J. Santamaria QC with Mr M. Gindberg	Victorian Government Solicitors
For the Fourthnamed Defendant	Mr R. Gipp	Ebsworth & Ebsworth

HIS HONOUR: 

1. The plaintiff seeks to tender into evidence a sawn-off rifle bearing the serial number 022019 as evidence of the appearance and properties of the sawn-off rifle with which he was charged and convicted of unlawful possession. 

1. Objection is taken on behalf of the first defendant, which is supported by the third defendant, on the grounds that there is no proof that the weapon is the weapon with which the plaintiff was charged with unlawful possession and there can be no proof of that until and unless a witness with first‑hand knowledge of the matter gives sworn evidence to that effect. 

1. I do not agree with that contention.  There is before the court already photographic evidence, both still and moving picture video, which shows both the appearance of the weapon and that it bore the serial number 022019 at the time at which the plaintiff was charged with its unlawful possession. 

1. In my opinion, this is a case where to some extent at least the thing which is sought to be tendered into evidence speaks for itself, in the way, for example, that anything which is of unique or even unusual appearance may, if tendered into evidence, prove that it was something which was seen at an earlier time to have the same unique or unusual appearance.  It is not a case like Meyers v Director of Public Prosecutions where what was sought to be tendered was documentary evidence of the serial number which had been ascribed to the engine of a motor car where the maker of the documentary record was not called to give evidence. 

1. Here, although of course it is open to be rebutted, the fact that the object itself bears a serial number and a particular appearance is at least some evidence that it is the same object as is shown in the photographs to have that number and appearance at an earlier time.  Accordingly, I will receive the weapon into evidence as exhibit P150 absolutely to be described as sawn-off Cooey rifle bearing serial number 022019 and magazine.

----