R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 29) [2018] NSWSC 133

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 29) [2018] NSWSC 133

It was in the interests of justice to require Gattellari to answer the question and related questions because his credit was of central importance in the accused's trial, there was a direct link between his role as a witness, his credit, and the pending charges concerning alleged attempts to obtain money in return for tailoring his evidence, the accused had a fundamental right to a fair trial, and a certificate under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) provided sufficient protection so that Gattellari's own fair trial rights would not be prejudiced.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural and Evidence Ruling in a Murder and Intimidation Trial / During Cross Examination of the Crown's Principal Witness, on Whether the Witness Should Be Required to Answer Questions After Objecting Under S 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)
Outcome
Gattellari was required to answer the question and any related question.
Legal Topics
['compellability of Witness' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'section 128 Certificate' 'interests of Justice' 'cross Examination of Accomplice' 'witness Credit' 'fair Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['compellability of Witness' 'privilege Against Self Incrimination' 'section 128 Certificate' 'interests of Justice' 'cross Examination of Accomplice' 'witness Credit' 'fair Trial']

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 Procedural and Evidence Ruling in a Murder and Intimidation Trial / During Cross Examination of the Crown's Principal Witness, on Whether the Witness Should Be Required to Answer Questions After Objecting Under S 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was in the interests of justice that Fortunato Gattellari be required to answer questions about pending conspiracy charges notwithstanding his objection to answering them.' 'Whether a certificate under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) gave sufficient protection to the witness.' "Whether the proposed questions, although directed to credit, were sufficiently connected with issues in the accused's trial to justify compelling answers."]

Ratio Decidendi

It was in the interests of justice to require Gattellari to answer the question and related questions because his credit was of central importance in the accused's trial, there was a direct link between his role as a witness, his credit, and the pending charges concerning alleged attempts to obtain money in return for tailoring his evidence, the accused had a fundamental right to a fair trial, and a certificate under s 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) provided sufficient protection so that Gattellari's own fair trial rights would not be prejudiced.

Court Disposition

Gattellari was required to answer the question and any related question.

Orders

  • ['The Court was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice that Gattellari be required to answer the question and any related question.']