R v Quintana (No. 1) [2020] NSWSC 23

R v Quintana (No. 1) [2020] NSWSC 23

Leave was refused because Ms Tairi was a critical eyewitness whose evidence was central to self-defence and credibility issues, she had given five different versions, had previously failed to comply with bail and left Australia, and could not be compelled by the Court if giving evidence from New Zealand. Reliance on her voluntary cooperation created a real risk that lack of cooperation during a jury trial would cause the trial to miscarry. The Crown and police had not taken adequate timely steps to secure her attendance, and the material did not establish that her extradition could not be expedited. In those circumstances it was not appropriate to permit the evidence by AVL; she needed to...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Procedural Ruling / Pre Trial Application by the Crown for Leave for Nadine Tairi to Give Evidence From New Zealand by Audio Visual Link
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
['evidence by Audio Visual Link' 'evidence From New Zealand' 'trans Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (cth)' 'compellability of Overseas Witness' 'eyewitness Credibility' 'self Defence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['evidence by Audio Visual Link' 'evidence From New Zealand' 'trans Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (cth)' 'compellability of Overseas Witness' 'eyewitness Credibility' 'self Defence']

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 Ruling / Pre Trial Application by the Crown for Leave for Nadine Tairi to Give Evidence From New Zealand by Audio Visual Link

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 50 of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 (Cth) for Nadine Tairi to give evidence from New Zealand by audio-visual link.' "Whether Ms Tairi's evidence could more conveniently be given from New Zealand and whether it was appropriate to give leave." "Whether reliance on Ms Tairi's voluntary cooperation was adequate given she could not be compelled by subpoena and had previously failed to cooperate with New South Wales legal processes." "Whether the importance of Ms Tairi's evidence, her multiple inconsistent versions, and the accused's need to cross-examine her required her attendance in person."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because Ms Tairi was a critical eyewitness whose evidence was central to self-defence and credibility issues, she had given five different versions, had previously failed to comply with bail and left Australia, and could not be compelled by the Court if giving evidence from New Zealand. Reliance on her voluntary cooperation created a real risk that lack of cooperation during a jury trial would cause the trial to miscarry. The Crown and police had not taken adequate timely steps to secure her attendance, and the material did not establish that her extradition could not be expedited. In those circumstances it was not appropriate to permit the evidence by AVL; she needed to...

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • ['Leave for the giving of evidence by AVL by Nadine Tairi is refused.']