R v Issakidis [2016] NSWSC 747

R v Issakidis [2016] NSWSC 747

The note was too equivocal to be used as an implied representation by Mr Dickson that Mr Issakidis was already involved in the alleged conspiracy; permitting that use and directing the jury accordingly would be unfair. However, the juxtaposition of the phrase concerning discussion with Zac on Saturday and the diagram indicating a proposed distribution of money made it fairly open to infer that Mr Dickson intended to discuss that matter with Mr Issakidis and did so. The document's use was therefore restricted to evidence of Mr Dickson's state of mind and what he proposed to discuss with the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial for Conspiracy / Evidentiary Ruling After Evidence Closed and Before Addresses
Outcome
Use of the handwritten note restricted under s 136 of the Evidence Act 2005 (NSW).
Legal Topics
['conspiracy' 'co Conspirator Statements' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'restricted Use of Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'unfair Trial']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['conspiracy' 'co Conspirator Statements' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'restricted Use of Evidence' 'discretion to Exclude Evidence' 'unfair 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 Trial for Conspiracy / Evidentiary Ruling After Evidence Closed and Before Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a handwritten note of alleged co-conspirator Mr Anthony Dickson could be used as evidence of an implied representation that Mr Issakidis was already a participant in the alleged conspiracy under Ahern v R.' "Whether the note could be used as evidence of Mr Dickson's state of mind and what he proposed to discuss, and did discuss, with Mr Issakidis on Saturday, 2 September 2006." 'Whether the use of the note should be restricted under s 136 of the Evidence Act 2005 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The note was too equivocal to be used as an implied representation by Mr Dickson that Mr Issakidis was already involved in the alleged conspiracy; permitting that use and directing the jury accordingly would be unfair. However, the juxtaposition of the phrase concerning discussion with Zac on Saturday and the diagram indicating a proposed distribution of money made it fairly open to infer that Mr Dickson intended to discuss that matter with Mr Issakidis and did so. The document's use was therefore restricted to evidence of Mr Dickson's state of mind and what he proposed to discuss with the accused.

Court Disposition

Use of the handwritten note restricted under s 136 of the Evidence Act 2005 (NSW).

Orders

  • ["Pursuant to s 136 of the Evidence Act 2005 (NSW) the use of the document at page 513A of Exhibit A be restricted to evidence of Mr Dickson's state of mind and what he proposed to discuss with the accused."]