Regina v Patsalis & Spathis [No 3] [1999] NSWSC 718

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Regina v Patsalis & Spathis [No 3] [1999] NSWSC 718 revised - 27/09/99 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Criminal Division FILE NUMBER(S) : 70002/97; 70200/97 28 June 1999 - 30 June 1999 2 July 1999 HEARING DATE(S) : 5 July 1999 - 7 July 1999 12 July 1999 - 14 July 1999 19 July 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 July 1999

Regina PARTIES : v Michael Patsalis Alexios Spathis JUDGMENT OF : Kirby J

P Power (Crown) COUNSEL : M Macgregor QC (Patsalis) D Campbell (Spathis) K Roots (Crown) SOLICITORS : Coustas & Co (Patsalis) Hancock Alldis (Spathis) CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE; Admissibility of Evidence; Impropriety - failure to warn ACTS CITED : Evidence Act, 1995 - s 138, s139 Crimes Act, 1900 DECISION : See para 45

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

KIRBY J

Tuesday 20 July 1999

70002/97 - REGINA v MICHAEL PATSALIS 70200/97 - REGINA v ALEXIOS SPATHIS

JUDGMENT (Re Hand-written Statement) [No 3]

1 HIS HONOUR: On 12 April 1996, Mr Patsalis handed police a document. It was a statement which he had prepared, and brought with him to the Bankstown Police Station. The Prosecution, in its case against Mr Patsalis for murder, seeks to rely upon that document. Objection is taken on behalf of Mr Patsalis upon a number of grounds: · First, it is said that the document was improperly obtained. No warning was administered before Mr Patsalis handed the document to police (s138, s139 Evidence Act 1995). · Secondly, and in any event, the document discloses previous offences or discreditable conduct, offending the rules relating to propensity evidence (s97(1) Evidence Act 1995). 2 I will deal separately with the second aspect. It also arises in the context of the electronically recorded interview (ERISP) conducted with Mr Patsalis later the same evening. In the course of that interview, the police invited Mr Patsalis to read the hand-written statement, and he did so.