R v Kaddour (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 405

R v Kaddour (No 2) [2019] NSWDC 405

The Crown was not permitted to reopen its case because the proposed evidence was not a purely formal matter overlooked in chief: it had not been served as part of the Crown brief and its existence only became apparent after the defence closing address exposed the deficiency. The defence had conducted the trial on the basis that no evidence linked the accused to the premises, so reopening would be unfair. The accused had complied with s143 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the proposed evidence concerned proof that a DNA sample was taken from the accused, not continuity of custody of a proposed exhibit.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Judge Alone Trial / Crown Application to Reopen the Crown Case After Closing of the Defence Case and Completion of Closing Addresses
Outcome
Crown application to reopen the Crown case declined.
Legal Topics
['reopening of Crown Case' 'dna Evidence' 'defence Response Notice' 'drug Offences' 'judge Alone Trial']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['reopening of Crown Case' 'dna Evidence' 'defence Response Notice' 'drug Offences' 'judge Alone Trial']

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 Judge Alone Trial / Crown Application to Reopen the Crown Case After Closing of the Defence Case and Completion of Closing Addresses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to reopen its case to lead evidence from Detective Senior Constable Brest establishing that the DNA reference sample used for comparison was taken from the accused.' 'Whether the failure to lead evidence identifying the DNA reference sample as taken from the accused was a purely formal matter overlooked in chief or an oversight justifying reopening.' 'Whether permitting reopening would be unfair to the accused after the defence case and closing addresses had been completed.' 'Whether the accused was obliged under section 143 of the Criminal Procedure Act to identify the deficiency in the Crown case or raise the issue as continuity of custody.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown was not permitted to reopen its case because the proposed evidence was not a purely formal matter overlooked in chief: it had not been served as part of the Crown brief and its existence only became apparent after the defence closing address exposed the deficiency. The defence had conducted the trial on the basis that no evidence linked the accused to the premises, so reopening would be unfair. The accused had complied with s143 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the proposed evidence concerned proof that a DNA sample was taken from the accused, not continuity of custody of a proposed exhibit.

Court Disposition

Crown application to reopen the Crown case declined.

Orders

  • ['Crown application to reopen the Crown case declined.']