R v Tangi (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 538

R v Tangi (No 3) [2020] NSWSC 538

The application was refused because, despite recognising safety concerns for Witness A and taking existing suppression orders into account, the Court was not satisfied that the grounds for audio visual link evidence had been made out, particularly given concerns about open justice, confrontation, and effective cross-examination. For Witness B, the asserted psychological or psychiatric basis was not supported by a psychiatric or psychological report or equivalent evidence, and the Court was not satisfied on the existing evidence that sufficient grounds existed, although renewal of the application was left open if further evidence were obtained.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Procedural Application for Evidence of Witnesses a and B to Be Taken by Audio Visual Link
Outcome
Application for audio-visual evidence of Witnesses A and B refused at this stage.
Legal Topics
['audio Visual Link Evidence' 'witness Safety' 'suppression Orders' 'open Justice' 'fair Trial' 'cross Examination']
['evidence' 'criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure'] ['audio Visual Link Evidence' 'witness Safety' 'suppression Orders' 'open Justice' 'fair Trial' 'cross Examination']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Proceedings / Procedural Application for Evidence of Witnesses a and B to Be Taken by Audio Visual Link

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Witness A should give evidence remotely by audio visual link because of safety risks associated with giving evidence for the Crown against an accused in a criminal prosecution.' 'Whether Witness B should give evidence remotely by audio visual link because of asserted psychiatric or psychological difficulties in giving evidence in Court.' 'Whether use of audio visual link would create unfairness to the accused in cross-examination, including by limiting the use of documents or CCTV footage and affecting the ability to confront witnesses.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was refused because, despite recognising safety concerns for Witness A and taking existing suppression orders into account, the Court was not satisfied that the grounds for audio visual link evidence had been made out, particularly given concerns about open justice, confrontation, and effective cross-examination. For Witness B, the asserted psychological or psychiatric basis was not supported by a psychiatric or psychological report or equivalent evidence, and the Court was not satisfied on the existing evidence that sufficient grounds existed, although renewal of the application was left open if further evidence were obtained.

Court Disposition

Application for audio-visual evidence of Witnesses A and B refused at this stage.

Orders

  • ['The application for evidence by audio visual link is at this stage refused.']