R v Haile [2023] NSWSC 42

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Haile [2023] NSWSC 42 Hearing dates: 31 January 2023 Date of orders: 06 February 2023 Decision date: 06 February 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Harrison J Decision: Evidence admitted in part Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissibility – accused testimony from previous trial where original verdict quashed – CCTV evidence rejected during first trial – whether footage so deficient in quality to render it prejudicial EVIDENCE – admissibility – hearsay – witness deceased – relevance to alleged motive of former spouse to procure hitman Legislation Cited: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: Nguyen v R (2020) 269 CLR 299; [2020] HCA 23 R v Eastman (No 15) [2017] ACTSC 143 R v Krivosic (No. 5) [2021] NSWSC 1566 R v Mills [1986] VR 617 R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 740 Wong Kam-Ming v R [1980] AC 247 Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex (Crown) Daniel Haile (Accused) Representation: Counsel: D Patch (Crown) J Brock (Accused)

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused) File Number(s): 2013/334195 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Daniel Haile is due to stand trial before me and a jury charged that on 30 October 2013 at Pendle Hill in the State of New South Wales he murdered Ray Pasnin. The trial was originally listed on 6 February 2023, but on Mr Haile's application, which the Crown did not oppose, I adjourned it for one week. The trial will now commence on Monday 13 February 2023. 2. One significant reason for the adjournment related to the need to deal with significant historical publicity concerning the allegations against Mr Haile that arose in the context of previous proceedings for the same offence. Mr Haile was originally tried before R S Hulme J in 2016. Those proceedings generated a large amount of media attention, in the form of news reports and commentary, that remains available and electronically accessible on various Internet sites throughout New South Wales and beyond. Part of the reporting of the trial included the fact that Mr Haile was convicted. News items on the Internet reporting Mr Haile's conviction continue to be available notwithstanding the fact that he successfully appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Mr Haile's trial next week follows from orders made in his appeal proceedings. 3. As presently advised, argument about whether or not the offending historical material should be taken down for the duration of the new trial is scheduled to take place before me on 6 February 2023. The attitude of media outlets to that application will be considered at that time. There is no suggestion that the fair reporting of the upcoming proceedings should also be restricted. The only current concern is that potential or prospective jurors might inadvertently, or even intentionally, gain access to what would now be prejudicial historical media commentary so as to imperil the fairness of the trial. 4. The other significant reason for the adjournment is the need to deal with a series of legal issues that have been foreshadowed. I set aside the preceding week in order to deal with these matters. It now appears that their disposition will occupy some of the time originally intended for the trial proper. The balance of these reasons deal with those issues.