William Alexander Brodie v Michael Scot Streeter

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Sullivan
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 327
Hearing Dates:	9 September 2024 – 24 September 2024
Decision Date:	16 September 2024
Before:	Baker J
Decision:	See [34]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – application for witnesses to give evidence via audio-visual link – application opposed by defence for some witnesses – necessary facilities for AVL – more convenient for
witnesses to give evidence by AVL – no unfairness to accused – where giving evidence AVL would reduce cost to a party –
application granted
Legislation Cited:	Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) s 32
Cases Cited:	Antov v Bokan (No 2) (2019) 101 NSWLR 142; [2019] NSWCA
250
Campaign Master (UK) Ltd v Forty Two International Pty Ltd
(No 3) [2009] FCA 1306; 181 FCR 152
In the matter of Mulberry Capital Management Pty Ltd v Shen -
AVL Application [2022] NSWSC 1023
KN v R [2017] NSWCCA 249; 95 NSWLR 767
R v AS [2023] NSWSC 885
R v Warwick (No.51) [2018] NSWSC 1555
Brodie v Streeter [2003] ACTSC 88; 180 FLR 176
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant)
Jake Sullivan (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (Applicant)
J Pappas (Respondent)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Applicant) Hugo Law Group (Respondent)
File Number:	SCC 322 of 2022

EDITED EX TEMPORE REASONS

BAKER J:

Introduction

1.       By an application filed in Court this morning, the prosecution made an application under

s 32 of the Evidence (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1991 (ACT) (EMP Act) for the

following witnesses to give evidence via audio-visual link (AVL):

(a) [redacted]

(b) [redacted]

(c) [redacted]

(d) [redacted]

(e) [redacted]

(f) [redacted]

(g) [redacted]

(h) [redacted]

1. In the affidavit of the prosecutor’s instructing solicitor, supplemented by oral information

   provided from the bar table, the prosecutor advised the court that arrangements had

   been made for [redacted], [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] to give

   evidence from Defence bases and police stations in other states and territories. I was

   informed that arrangements had not yet been made for [redacted] and [redacted] to give

   evidence via AVL. I understood those applications are not pressed at the present time.

3.       Mr Pappas, who appears for the accused, consented to the application with respect to

[redacted], [redacted] and [redacted]. I made orders under section 32 of the EMP Act

permitting each of these witnesses to give evidence via AVL, having been satisfied of

each of the requirements under that section. However, Mr Pappas opposed the making

of such an order with respect to [redacted], [redacted], [redacted] and [redacted] on the

basis that there would be unfairness to the accused if these witnesses were not required

to give evidence in person.

4.       Mr Pappas noted that each witness is a complaint witness, and that such evidence is

particularly important in trials relating to sexual assault allegations. He submitted that it

would be unfair to the accused if these witnesses were permitted to give evidence via

AVL. In support of this submission, Mr…