Ku-ring-gai Council v John David Chia (No 11) [2018] NSWLEC 177

Ku-ring-gai Council v John David Chia (No 11) [2018] NSWLEC 177

The documents were admitted because the defendant was not unaware of the nature of the charge in the sense addressed by Mok, Johnson v Miller and King; the alleged particularisation failure concerned only whether the documents were mentioned in the prosecutor's opening, and no duty to particularise at that granular level was established. The documents had been filed and served on 30 September 2016 and were referred to in the s 247J and s 247K notices, so the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced. In any event, the prosecutor's opening gave adequate notice of reliance on written statements by Mr Hyden as admissions, and Mr Robertson's letters were admitted only to provide context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Class 5 Criminal Proceedings; Procedural and Other Ruling / During Hearing, Ruling on Prosecutor's Tender of Documents in Examination in Chief
Outcome
Tender allowed; documents admitted into evidence.
Legal Topics
["prosecutor's Duty to Disclose" 'particularisation of Prosecution Case' 'tender of Documents' 'admissions Under S 87 of the Evidence Act' 'pre Trial Notices Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw)']
['practice and Procedure' 'criminal Law' 'evidence'] ["prosecutor's Duty to Disclose" 'particularisation of Prosecution Case' 'tender of Documents' 'admissions Under S 87 of the Evidence Act' 'pre Trial Notices Under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (nsw)']

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

Class 5 Criminal Proceedings; Procedural and Other Ruling / During Hearing, Ruling on Prosecutor's Tender of Documents in Examination in Chief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the prosecutor should be permitted to tender letters involving Andrew Hyden and Noel Robertson during Mr Robertson's examination-in-chief." 'Whether tendering the documents was a departure from the prosecution case as opened.' 'Whether the defendant was on notice of the documents and would be unfairly prejudiced by their tender.']

Ratio Decidendi

The documents were admitted because the defendant was not unaware of the nature of the charge in the sense addressed by Mok, Johnson v Miller and King; the alleged particularisation failure concerned only whether the documents were mentioned in the prosecutor's opening, and no duty to particularise at that granular level was established. The documents had been filed and served on 30 September 2016 and were referred to in the s 247J and s 247K notices, so the defendant was not unfairly prejudiced. In any event, the prosecutor's opening gave adequate notice of reliance on written statements by Mr Hyden as admissions, and Mr Robertson's letters were admitted only to provide context.

Court Disposition

Tender allowed; documents admitted into evidence.

Orders

  • ["The letters and related documents sought to be tendered during Mr Robertson's examination-in-chief were admitted into evidence."]