Regina v Patsalis & Spathis [No 2] [1999] NSWSC 714

New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Regina v Patsalis & Spathis [No 2] [1999] NSWSC 714 revised - 27/09/99 CURRENT JURISDICTION : Criminal Division FILE NUMBER(S) : 70002/97; 70200/97 28 June 1999 - 30 June 1999 HEARING DATE(S) : 2 July 1999 5 July 1999 - 7 July 1999 12 July 1999 - 14 July 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 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; Discretion - s137 Evidence Act, 1995 ACTS CITED : Evidence Act, 1995 - s137 DECISION : See para 9

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

KIRBY J

Thursday 15 July 1999

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

JUDGMENT (Re Police Academy) [No 2] 1 HIS HONOUR: The Crown has foreshadowed that it will rely upon the participation by the accused, Mr Patsalis, in the recruitment programme of the Police Academy. It intends to call Sgt Gorman, an officer responsible for the records of the Academy. 2 The records reveal that, between 28 January 1990 and 14 March 1990, Mr Patsalis was enrolled as a student at the Academy at Goulburn. He left the Academy, however, before the completion of Phase 1 of the course. 3 Mr Patsalis re-enrolled at the Academy on 28 April 1991. He completed an eight week residential course (Phase 1), and a four week field work course (Phase 2). He then began a further residential course (Phase 3). The course was scheduled to last fourteen weeks. Upon completion, students were to be sworn in as probationary constables. However, less than two weeks before the completion date, Mr Patsalis left the Academy. 4 Sgt Gorman, by reference to the records, is able to describe the instruction given to Mr Patsalis during his time at the Academy. The courses included Police Practice, Patrol and Investigation. 5 The Crown suggests that, having had such training, Mr Patsalis would have been aware of the steps that could be taken to conceal the crime. Gloves were purchased before the murder. The Crown invites the inference that this was done to avoid fingerprints. The vehicle in which Mr Ludwig was stabbed was destroyed by fire. The knife which had been used to stab Mr Ludwig was left within the cabin of the truck, as were petrol tins used to set the vehicle alight. These items were destroyed or damaged, again eradicating fingerprints. 6 Objection is taken on behalf of Mr Patsalis. It is suggested the evidence is irrelevant. It is also prejudicial. Indeed, it is a matter of some sensitivity. Mr Patsalis, part way through his course, was charged with a criminal offence. The matter was brought before the Local Court. The charge was dismissed. Mr Patsalis was then allowed to resume the course. However, before completing Phase 3, he was again subject to further allegations. A female police cadet apparently made the allegations. Mr Patsalis was then dismissed from the Academy, without charges having been laid. 7 I believe the relevance of the evidence is slight. Any adult, and certainly one who has watched television, would know that, from the viewpoint of someone who had engaged in crime, gloves were desirable to avoid fingerprints, as was the destruction of evidence. Tuition at the Police Academy would hardly be necessary to impart that knowledge. 8 I believe there is some danger of unfair prejudice to Mr Patsalis, were the evidence led. The jury may wonder why he left the Academy when he had almost completed his course. 9 I therefore believe that the probative value of the evidence is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Under s137 Evidence Act 1995, I refuse the application by the Crown to adduce such evidence. **********