R v Kelu; R v Millner (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 1540

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Kelu; R v Millner (No 4) [2023] NSWSC 1540 Hearing dates: 26 June 2023 Date of orders: 26 June 2023 Decision date: 26 June 2023 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Cavanagh J Decision: The documents will be admitted into evidence. Catchwords: EVIDENCE — Documentary evidence — Tender of documents – relevance of documents in relation to the oral evidence of witnesses – evidence admitted Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Rex Jonatan Kelu Cedric Adrian Millner Representation: Counsel: G Craddock SC with B Stevens (Crown) M Avenell SC (Mr Kelu) S Hall SC (Mr Millner)

Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Bannisters Lawyers (Mr Kelu) KPW Lawyers (Mr Millner) File Number(s): 2018/32462 and 2018/67357 Publication restriction: None

REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. I propose to admit the documents (being the "List of purchases from Livingstone International Proprietary Limited from 2005 to 2010" and the "Test result with lab reference 1912131") on the basis that, in respect of the first series of documents relating to Mr Kelu's interest or involvement in the laboratory, there has been other evidence from witnesses on that same point. 2. The Crown will put to the jury that the story about nanoparticles has been made up or manipulated. The documents provide some explanation or context about what people were being asked to do. It seems to me that it is permissible, in those circumstances, for Mr Kelu to tender evidence to the effect that he has been involved in a laboratory at some stage in the past. It is open to the Crown to make its own submissions about that evidence. 3. As for the second document, Ms Avenell says it is consistent with other evidence, albeit it is dated December 2013. Again, I am sure the Crown will make submissions about that. 4. Bearing in mind the evidence which has emerged during the trial thus far, and the propositions which the Crown will put to the jury about nanoparticles, I determine that the evidence is admissible.