Filipowski v Hemina Holdings S. A. ; Filipowski v Rajagopalan [2009] NSWLEC 67

Filipowski v Hemina Holdings S. A. ; Filipowski v Rajagopalan [2009] NSWLEC 67

The defendants had not shown sufficiently strong reasons for the witnesses not attending court in person. In criminal proceedings involving substantial penalties, issues of credit, and documentary material of quantity or complexity, the prosecutor should not be deprived of in-person cross-examination merely because of cost and ordinary business commitments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecutions / Defendants' Notice of Motion for Evidence to Be Received by Video Link Before Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['application to Adduce Evidence by Video Link' 'overseas Witnesses' 'cross Examination' 'documentary Cross Examination' 'costs of Attendance']
['practice and Procedure' 'evidence' 'criminal Procedure'] ['application to Adduce Evidence by Video Link' 'overseas Witnesses' 'cross Examination' 'documentary Cross Examination' 'costs of Attendance']

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 Prosecutions / Defendants' Notice of Motion for Evidence to Be Received by Video Link Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the evidence of Captain Swaminathan Rajagopalan and Mr Abhay Bhonge should be received by video link under r 31.3 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.' 'Whether workload commitments and costs of attending justified permitting overseas witnesses to give evidence by video link in criminal proceedings where credit issues and documentary cross-examination were involved.']

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants had not shown sufficiently strong reasons for the witnesses not attending court in person. In criminal proceedings involving substantial penalties, issues of credit, and documentary material of quantity or complexity, the prosecutor should not be deprived of in-person cross-examination merely because of cost and ordinary business commitments.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The defendants' notice of motion dated 14 April 2009 for the receiving of evidence via video link is dismissed." "The defendants must pay the prosecutor's costs of the notice of motion." 'Note that the hearing is listed for three (3) days commencing 25 May 2009.']