R v MUJUEVIC, SALIBA, RYMER, CUSENS [2017] NSWDC 215

R v MUJUEVIC, SALIBA, RYMER, CUSENS [2017] NSWDC 215

It is not 'in the interests of justice' to issue a certificate under s 128 Evidence Act 1995 to Mr Rolfe, an accomplice awaiting trial, as his evidence would be inherently unreliable, pose risk of unfairness to co-accused, and allow opportunity for prosecution to adduce evidence against current accused without sufficient safeguards; granting the certificate would compromise the fairness of the trial.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Accused: Eldin Mujuevic; Accused: Jamie Saliba; Accused: Chris Michael Rymer; Accused: Troy Cusens
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 April 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Certificate Under S 128 Evidence Act 1995
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Certificate for Witness, Interests of Justice, Self Incrimination, Unreliable Evidence
Criminal Law Evidence Certificate for Witness Interests of Justice Self Incrimination Unreliable 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Eldin Mujuevic

Accused

Jamie Saliba

Accused

Chris Michael Rymer

Accused

Troy Cusens

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Certificate Under S 128 Evidence Act 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should a certificate under s 128 Evidence Act 1995 be issued to a witness who is a co-accused, yet to be tried, in light of interests of justice and risks of unfairness to the accused and witness?
  2. 2 Does the ‘interests of justice’ require the witness to give evidence under certificate where there are potential risks to fair trial and reliability concerns?

Ratio Decidendi

It is not 'in the interests of justice' to issue a certificate under s 128 Evidence Act 1995 to Mr Rolfe, an accomplice awaiting trial, as his evidence would be inherently unreliable, pose risk of unfairness to co-accused, and allow opportunity for prosecution to adduce evidence against current accused without sufficient safeguards; granting the certificate would compromise the fairness of the trial.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application for certificate under s 128 Evidence Act 1995 by Timothy Steven Rolfe refused