R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 32) [2018] NSWSC 253

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 32) [2018] NSWSC 253

The evidence elicited in re-examination did not alter the Crown case that the conversation remained one between Safetli and Gattellari; the question was directed only to Kaminic's understanding of the conversation. Any complaint that the evidence should have been led in chief was appropriately remedied by granting leave for further cross-examination, so there was no basis to discharge the jury.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Law Evidence Jury / Application to Discharge Jury During Trial; Alternative Application for Leave to Further Cross Examine Witness
Outcome
Application to discharge the jury refused; leave granted to further cross-examine Kaminic.
Legal Topics
['jury Discharge' 'suggested Change in Crown Case' 're Examination' 'further Cross Examination']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['jury Discharge' 'suggested Change in Crown Case' 're Examination' 'further Cross Examination']

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 Jury / Application to Discharge Jury During Trial; Alternative Application for Leave to Further Cross Examine Witness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the jury should be discharged because evidence elicited in re-examination was said to suggest a change in the Crown case and cause prejudice to the accused.' 'Whether any prejudice arising from the evidence being elicited in re-examination rather than in chief could be remedied by granting leave for further cross-examination.']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence elicited in re-examination did not alter the Crown case that the conversation remained one between Safetli and Gattellari; the question was directed only to Kaminic's understanding of the conversation. Any complaint that the evidence should have been led in chief was appropriately remedied by granting leave for further cross-examination, so there was no basis to discharge the jury.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the jury refused; leave granted to further cross-examine Kaminic.

Orders

  • ['The application to discharge the jury is refused.' 'The accused is granted leave to further cross-examine Kaminic.']