R v Sami KURDI [2009] NSWDC 363

Reported Decision : 10 DCLR (NSW) 115

New South Wales District Court

CITATION: R v Sami KURDI [2009] NSWDC 363

JUDGMENT DATE: 11 November 2009

JURISDICTION: District Court of New South Wales

JUDGMENT OF: Cogswell SC DCJ

DECISION: The application is rejected.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - s 294B(3) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 - application by defence that complainant not give evidence via CCTV - "special reasons in the interest of justice"

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Procedure Act 1986 s 294B(3)

CASES CITED: R v Sudath [2008] NSWCCA 207

PARTIES: Regina Sami Kurdi

FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/8389

COUNSEL: Mr E Moberley Mr M Thangoraj

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions NSW Watsons

JUDGMENT 1. These are proceedings in respect of a prescribed sexual offence. Accordingly under s 294B(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 the complainant, if called as witness, is entitled to give evidence by means of closed circuit television facilities. The complainant in this case has so elected, thereby exercising her entitlement.

2. Mr Thangaraj who appears for the accused has applied under section 294B for an order that the complainant not give her evidence by means of closed circuit television facilities. Mr Moberley who appears as Crown Prosecutor opposes that application.

3. A court may make such an order "only if it is satisfied that there are special reasons, in the interests of justice, for the complainant's evidence not to be given by such means": see s 294B(6). Mr Thangaraj argues that this is a case where the circumstances are such that I should exercise my discretion.

4. His client faces 28 charges. Six of those are prescribed sexual offences. The charges, it is common ground, arise out of a relationship between the complainant and the accused which went on for some years. It involved consensual sexual intercourse at various stages. The charges on the indictment not only include the six prescribed sexual offences which I have referred to but charges such as assault and demanding money with menaces and assault occasioning actual bodily harm. All of those charges are ones in respect of which the complainant is the alleged victim.