R v Sio (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1413

R v Sio (No 2) [2013] NSWSC 1413

Because there was a substantial risk that Mr Filihia might answer questions for the accused but refuse to answer Crown cross-examination, potentially causing the trial to miscarry if it occurred before the jury, the appropriate course was to make an order under s 77 requiring him to attend Court so that he could be examined and cross-examined on the voir dire to determine whether he was prepared to answer the Crown's questions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Interlocutory Application for Witness in Custody to Attend Court
Outcome
Order made under s 77 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 that Richard Filihia attend Court on 17 September 2013 to give evidence.
Legal Topics
['subpoena for Witness in Custody' 'witness Refusal to Answer Questions' 'voir Dire' 'order Under S 77 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['subpoena for Witness in Custody' 'witness Refusal to Answer Questions' 'voir Dire' 'order Under S 77 of the Crimes (administration of Sentences) Act 1999']

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 / Interlocutory Application for Witness in Custody to Attend Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Richard Filihia should be required to attend Court to give evidence on behalf of the accused.' 'Whether there was a substantial risk that Richard Filihia would answer questions from the accused but refuse to answer questions in cross-examination by the Crown.' 'Whether that risk could be mitigated by requiring Richard Filihia to attend Court for examination and cross-examination on the voir dire.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was a substantial risk that Mr Filihia might answer questions for the accused but refuse to answer Crown cross-examination, potentially causing the trial to miscarry if it occurred before the jury, the appropriate course was to make an order under s 77 requiring him to attend Court so that he could be examined and cross-examined on the voir dire to determine whether he was prepared to answer the Crown's questions.

Court Disposition

Order made under s 77 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 that Richard Filihia attend Court on 17 September 2013 to give evidence.

Orders

  • ['I make an order under s 77 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Act 1999 that Richard Filihia attend Court on 17 September 2013 to give evidence.']