R v Christos PODARAS [2009] NSWDC 412

R v Christos PODARAS [2009] NSWDC 412

Leave was appropriate because the proposition that one assailant might have been the former girlfriend's brother was first raised in cross-examination of the mother and could not have been anticipated by the Crown. The complainant knew the brother and could give evidence that the assailant was not him, evidence which could have been elicited in chief. It would be unfair not to allow the Crown to put that proposition to the complainant, and the recall did not impermissibly split the Crown case.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Trial Concerning Alleged Kidnapping and Assault / Crown Application During Trial for Leave to Recall a Witness Under S 46 of the Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Leave granted to recall the witness.
Legal Topics
['recall of Witness' 'cross Examination' 'splitting the Crown Case' 'identification Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['recall of Witness' 'cross Examination' 'splitting the Crown Case' 'identification 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 Trial Concerning Alleged Kidnapping and Assault / Crown Application During Trial for Leave to Recall a Witness Under S 46 of the Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Crown should be granted leave under s 46 of the Evidence Act 1995 to recall the complainant after a later witness was cross-examined on whether one of the assailants was the former girlfriend's brother." 'Whether granting leave would unfairly allow the Crown to split its case.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was appropriate because the proposition that one assailant might have been the former girlfriend's brother was first raised in cross-examination of the mother and could not have been anticipated by the Crown. The complainant knew the brother and could give evidence that the assailant was not him, evidence which could have been elicited in chief. It would be unfair not to allow the Crown to put that proposition to the complainant, and the recall did not impermissibly split the Crown case.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to recall the witness.

Orders

  • ['I grant leave to recall the witness.']