R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 1164

R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 1164

Exhibit VD9 may be tendered because neither subpoena issued by Mr Sparos required production of the document, Mr Sparos cross-examined Witness E while not knowing why Mr Romolo's visits had stopped, Witness E was said not to know the reason either, the Crown had not failed to disclose material caught by the subpoenas, and tendering the document would reasonably correct a possible misapprehension without causing adverse impact on the accused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Proceedings / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Whether Exhibit VD9 May Be Tendered by the Crown
Outcome
Exhibit VD9 may be tendered by the Crown.
Legal Topics
['production of Documents in Answer to Subpoena' 'scope of Subpoena' 'tender of Documentary Evidence' 'possible Discharge of Jury' 'alleged Non Disclosure']
['criminal Procedure' 'evidence'] ['production of Documents in Answer to Subpoena' 'scope of Subpoena' 'tender of Documentary Evidence' 'possible Discharge of Jury' 'alleged Non Disclosure']

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 / Procedural Ruling During Trial on Whether Exhibit VD9 May Be Tendered by the Crown

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether subpoenas issued by Mr Sparos required production of the document that became Exhibit VD9.' 'Whether the Crown should be permitted to tender Exhibit VD9 after Mr Sparos cross-examined Witness E about Mr Romolo ceasing visits between December 2010 and June 2011.' 'Whether tendering Exhibit VD9 would cause unfair prejudice or an adverse impact on Mr Sparos before the jury.']

Ratio Decidendi

Exhibit VD9 may be tendered because neither subpoena issued by Mr Sparos required production of the document, Mr Sparos cross-examined Witness E while not knowing why Mr Romolo's visits had stopped, Witness E was said not to know the reason either, the Crown had not failed to disclose material caught by the subpoenas, and tendering the document would reasonably correct a possible misapprehension without causing adverse impact on the accused.

Court Disposition

Exhibit VD9 may be tendered by the Crown.

Orders

  • ['The Crown was allowed to tender Exhibit VD9.' 'Any foreshadowed application by Mr Sparos to discharge the jury should only be considered if Exhibit VD9 is actually tendered.']