R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 25) [2017] NSWSC 356

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 25) [2017] NSWSC 356

Warnings under s. 165 were not warranted for McNamara or Prestia because their evidence concerned discrete issues, raised ordinary matters of credit within the jury's competence, and did not involve unreliability of a kind requiring judicial warning; a Murray direction was warranted because the Crown case depended substantially on Gattellari's evidence; but a direction that it would be dangerous to convict on Gattellari's uncorroborated evidence was not warranted because the circumstances were not truly exceptional, particularly given some independent corroboration in respect of the second count.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Jury Directions Prior to Final Addresses
Outcome
No s. 165 direction was to be given in relation to Mr McNamara or Mr Prestia; a Murray direction was appropriate; no direction was to be given that it would be dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of Gattellari.
Legal Topics
['jury Directions' 'section 165 Evidence Act Warnings' 'murray Direction' 'evidence of Co Offender or Accomplice' 'unreliable Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['jury Directions' 'section 165 Evidence Act Warnings' 'murray Direction' 'evidence of Co Offender or Accomplice' 'unreliable Evidence']

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 Proceedings / Procedural Ruling on Jury Directions Prior to Final Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a direction should be given under s. 165(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in relation to the evidence of Glen McNamara.' 'Whether a direction should be given under s. 165(1) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) in respect of the evidence of Joseph Prestia.' 'Whether a Murray direction should be given in relation to Lucky Gattellari.' 'Whether the jury should be directed that it would be dangerous to convict the accused on the uncorroborated evidence of Gattellari.']

Ratio Decidendi

Warnings under s. 165 were not warranted for McNamara or Prestia because their evidence concerned discrete issues, raised ordinary matters of credit within the jury's competence, and did not involve unreliability of a kind requiring judicial warning; a Murray direction was warranted because the Crown case depended substantially on Gattellari's evidence; but a direction that it would be dangerous to convict on Gattellari's uncorroborated evidence was not warranted because the circumstances were not truly exceptional, particularly given some independent corroboration in respect of the second count.

Court Disposition

No s. 165 direction was to be given in relation to Mr McNamara or Mr Prestia; a Murray direction was appropriate; no direction was to be given that it would be dangerous to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of Gattellari.

Orders

  • ['No direction under s. 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to be given in relation to the evidence of Glen McNamara.' 'No direction under s. 165 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) to be given in relation to the evidence of Joseph Prestia.' 'A Murray direction to be given in relation to Lucky Gattellari.' 'No direction...