Regina v Suteski [No 3] [2002] NSWSC 226

Regina v Suteski [No 3] [2002] NSWSC 226

The cross-examination and the witness's affirmation that the selected committal answers were true created an incomplete and potentially misleading impression that this was all Ms Salem had said at committal on the relevant issue. Because the issue was important to the seriousness of the intended assault, the Crown was permitted to re-examine the witness by drawing her attention to the identified committal passages, with the accused having a right to further cross-examine if she departed from the version elicited in cross-examination.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings; Murder Charge / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Re Examination of Witness Kaycee Salem
Outcome
Crown permitted to re-examine Kaycee Salem on the identified committal passages.
Legal Topics
['re Examination' 'cross Examination' 'committal Evidence' 'further Examination in Chief' 'evidence Act 1995 S 38' 'evidence Act 1995 S 192']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['re Examination' 'cross Examination' 'committal Evidence' 'further Examination in Chief' 'evidence Act 1995 S 38' 'evidence Act 1995 S 192']

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; Murder Charge / Interlocutory Evidentiary Ruling During Trial on Re Examination of Witness Kaycee Salem

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to re-examine Kaycee Salem by taking her to passages of her committal evidence after cross-examination referred to other committal evidence.' 'Whether the cross-examination created an incomplete and potentially misleading impression about what Ms Salem said at the committal on the issue of the intended assault on Mr Peich.' 'Whether, alternatively, the Crown would be entitled to leave under s.192 to further examine the witness in chief.']

Ratio Decidendi

The cross-examination and the witness's affirmation that the selected committal answers were true created an incomplete and potentially misleading impression that this was all Ms Salem had said at committal on the relevant issue. Because the issue was important to the seriousness of the intended assault, the Crown was permitted to re-examine the witness by drawing her attention to the identified committal passages, with the accused having a right to further cross-examine if she departed from the version elicited in cross-examination.

Court Disposition

Crown permitted to re-examine Kaycee Salem on the identified committal passages.

Orders

  • ['The Crown may re-examine Kaycee Salem by drawing her attention to the identified passages of her committal evidence.' 'The accused may further cross-examine if Ms Salem departs from the version elicited in cross-examination.']