R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 34) [2018] NSWSC 281

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 34) [2018] NSWSC 281

The proposed cross-examination was allowed because the witness's credit was a significant issue, the allegation concerned dishonesty, and, assuming an affirmative answer, alleged forgery could prove a false representation under s 103(2)(a). Although the events occurred about eight to ten years earlier, that factor was outweighed by the nature and importance of the allegation, and R v ATM did not require exclusion of the questions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Ruling / Objection During Cross Examination of Crown Witness
Outcome
Questions allowed.
Legal Topics
['cross Examination as to Credibility' 'credibility Evidence' 'alleged Forgery' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 103' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 128']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['cross Examination as to Credibility' 'credibility Evidence' 'alleged Forgery' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 103' 'evidence Act 1995 (nsw) S 128']

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 Evidence Ruling / Objection During Cross Examination of Crown Witness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused should be permitted to cross-examine Loren Gattellari about alleged involvement in trying to forge Mr Medich's signature." "Whether the proposed questions could substantially affect the assessment of the witness's credibility for the purposes of s 103 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)."]

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed cross-examination was allowed because the witness's credit was a significant issue, the allegation concerned dishonesty, and, assuming an affirmative answer, alleged forgery could prove a false representation under s 103(2)(a). Although the events occurred about eight to ten years earlier, that factor was outweighed by the nature and importance of the allegation, and R v ATM did not require exclusion of the questions.

Court Disposition

Questions allowed.

Orders

  • ["The questions concerning whether the witness had been involved in trying to forge Mr Medich's signature are allowed to be put."]