R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 30) [2018] NSWSC 206

R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 30) [2018] NSWSC 206

The two group one conversations arose directly from matters put to and answered by Gattellari in cross-examination about whether the accused advanced money to Gatto and knew of the $100,000 repayment into Gattellari's account. The accused's statements in those calls were admissions adverse to his interests and were admissible under s 81. Their probative value was high because they were capable of corroborating Gattellari on issues central to his credit, and any prejudice arising from the accused's association with Gatto or Thomas was not unfair and could be controlled by directions. The remaining disputed group two conversations were broader, did not properly arise from cross-examination,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 February 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceeding; Evidentiary Ruling / During Trial, Objection to Crown Adducing Intercepted Telephone Conversations and Related Documents in Re Examination And/or Evidence in Chief
Outcome
Evidence admitted in part and excluded in part.
Legal Topics
['re Examination' 'scope of Re Examination' 'hearsay' 'admissions' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'intercepted Telephone Conversations']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['re Examination' 'scope of Re Examination' 'hearsay' 'admissions' 'unfair Prejudice' 'probative Value' 'intercepted Telephone Conversations']

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 Proceeding; Evidentiary Ruling / During Trial, Objection to Crown Adducing Intercepted Telephone Conversations and Related Documents in Re Examination And/or Evidence in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the intercepted telephone conversations sought to be adduced by the Crown arose from evidence given by Gattellari in cross-examination for the purposes of s 39 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether the group one conversations between the accused and Thomas were hearsay and, if so, whether they were admissible as admissions under s 81 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).' 'Whether otherwise admissible evidence should be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) because its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.' 'Whether the group two conversations were sufficiently connected to matters arising from cross-examination and relevant to issues in the trial.']

Ratio Decidendi

The two group one conversations arose directly from matters put to and answered by Gattellari in cross-examination about whether the accused advanced money to Gatto and knew of the $100,000 repayment into Gattellari's account. The accused's statements in those calls were admissions adverse to his interests and were admissible under s 81. Their probative value was high because they were capable of corroborating Gattellari on issues central to his credit, and any prejudice arising from the accused's association with Gatto or Thomas was not unfair and could be controlled by directions. The remaining disputed group two conversations were broader, did not properly arise from cross-examination,...

Court Disposition

Evidence admitted in part and excluded in part.

Orders

  • ['The evidence of the two conversations in group one is allowed.' 'The entirety of the conversations in group two is excluded, except for the two calls to which no objection was ultimately taken.']