R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 16) [2017] NSWSC 104

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 16) [2017] NSWSC 104

The proposed cross-examination was not permitted because the Court was not satisfied that the evidence of hallucinations, depressive condition, or episodic drinking would substantially affect Kaminic's credibility. The treating psychiatrist's reports, despite long-term treatment since 1998, contained no reference to hallucinations, and treatment for depression or episodic drinking did not meet the s. 103 threshold.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidentiary Ruling / Voir Dire Concerning Proposed Cross Examination of Witness Senad Kaminic
Outcome
Crown objection upheld; the evidence sought to be elicited in cross-examination was not permitted.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination' 'credibility Rule' 'evidence Substantially Affecting Credibility' 'section 103 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination' 'credibility Rule' 'evidence Substantially Affecting Credibility' 'section 103 of the Evidence Act 1995 (nsw)']

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 Law Evidentiary Ruling / Voir Dire Concerning Proposed Cross Examination of Witness Senad Kaminic

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether evidence concerning Senad Kaminic's history of alcohol abuse and episodic auditory hallucinations was relevant to, and substantially affected, his credibility within the meaning of s. 103 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)." "Whether the Crown's objection to the proposed cross-examination should be upheld."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-examination was not permitted because the Court was not satisfied that the evidence of hallucinations, depressive condition, or episodic drinking would substantially affect Kaminic's credibility. The treating psychiatrist's reports, despite long-term treatment since 1998, contained no reference to hallucinations, and treatment for depression or episodic drinking did not meet the s. 103 threshold.

Court Disposition

Crown objection upheld; the evidence sought to be elicited in cross-examination was not permitted.

Orders

  • ['The evidence will not be permitted.']