R v Pieter Helmhout & Ors [2000] NSWSC 186

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Pieter Helmhout & Ors [2000] NSWSC 186 FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70023/99; 70205/99; 70206/99; 70098/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 25 February 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 25 February 2000

Regina v Pieter Egbert Helmhout

Regina v Deborah Joy Davidson PARTIES : Regina v Mark William Helmhout

Regina v Joanne Rose Delly JUDGMENT OF : Bell J

C: Mr R D Cogswell SC PH: Mr A Webb COUNSEL : DD: Mr J S Stratton MH: Mr G Corr JD: Mr M Crawford-Fish C: D Knott, Director of Public Prosecutions PH: Christine Bourke SOLICITORS : DD: Brenda Duchen MH: J R Jeffery, South Eastern Aboriginal Legal Service JD: G J Piscioneri CATCHWORDS : CRIMINAL LAW - Application for separate trial for Pieter Helmhout - whether prejudicial material be cured by direction LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900, s365 DECISION : Indictment severed; Pieter Helmhout be tried separately

THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION

BELL J

Friday, 25 February 2000 70023/99 - REGINA v PIETER EGBERT HELMHOUT 70205/99 - REGINA v DEBORAH JOY DAVIDSON 70206/99 - REGINA v MARK WILLIAM HELMHOUT 70098/99 - REGINA v JOANNE ROSE DELLY JUDGMENT - Application for separate trial for Pieter Helmhout 1 HER HONOUR: Mr Webb, who appears on behalf of the accused Pieter Helmhout, makes application that his client be separately tried from his co-accused, Mark Helmhout. The basis of the application is that at the joint trial the Crown would lead evidence in the case against Mark Helmhout in the form of an ERISP between investigating police and Mark Helmhout. That interview contains material highly prejudicial to the accused, Pieter Helmhout. It is submitted by Mr Webb that the prejudice is of such a high order that it could not be cured by direction. 2 The case against the accused, Pieter Helmhout, will depend in large measure upon the evidence of the witness Edward Szkudelski. The version of events that the Crown anticipates Mr Szkudelski will give receives, on a view, strong support from the account given by Mark Helmhout in his interview. The Crown frankly concedes that it would be difficult for a jury notwithstanding any direction I may give to separate out in their consideration of the weight they give to the evidence of Edward Szkudelski in the trial of Pieter Helmhout the impression created by the contents of the interview between Mark Helmhout and police. 3 I am of the view that there is in this case a real risk that the Crown case against Pieter Helmhout will be made immeasurably stronger by reason of the impact of the Mark Helmhout record of interview upon the jury and accordingly pursuant to s 365 of the Crimes Act, I direct that the indictment be severed and that Pieter Helmhout be tried separately from his co-accused, Mark Helmhout. **********