Regina v Suteski [No 2] [2002] NSWSC 225

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Regina v Suteski [No 2] [2002] NSWSC 225 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Criminal Division FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 70053/01 27/2/02 - 28/2/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 1/3/02 4/3/02 - 5/3/02 JUDGMENT DATE : 5 March 2002

PARTIES : Regina Sneza Suteski JUDGMENT OF : Kirby J

COUNSEL : M Tedeschi QC/Ms N Adams (Crown) P Byrne SC/R Nicol (Accused) SOLICITORS : S E O'Conor (Crown) R J Walsh, Murphy & Roskov (Accused) CATCHWORDS : Evidence - Relevance DECISION : Decision para 7

Extempore - Revised IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES CRIMINAL DIVISION

KIRBY J

Tuesday 5 March 2002

70053/01 - REGINA v SNEZA SUTESKI

JUDGMENT [No 2] - Proposed evidence of Alister MacIver 1 KIRBY J: In this matter the Crown proposes to call Mr Alister Neil MacIver, who is an accountant employed by Newman's Information Services, which provided a backup computer service to Newman's car yard, the latter being the employer of the accused. 2 The Crown case is that the accused systematically over a period of several months, beginning in August 1999 and ending in January 2000, removed money from her employer by various means concerned with the creation of false invoices or the presentation of such material. Material was provided to Mr Peich, her superior, for approval and, once approved, payments were then made. 3 It is the Crown case that the accused arranged for Mr Peich to be bashed in order that she could accomplish the frauds which she had in mind. She imparted that information, on the Crown case, to various individuals who were to undertake the bashing. 4 The Crown now seeks to introduce, through this witness, evidence as to inquiries which Mr Peich is said to have made to the Newman's Information Services relating to certain invoices which appeared to him irregular, and at a time which was material to the fraud which in fact was being perpetrated, namely November 1999. 5 Similar evidence has already been given, without objection, by Miss Molyneux in relation to another query which was made by Mr Peich, which has become exhibit E. The specific objection is that the inquiry made of Mr MacIver by Mr Peich cannot ultimately form the basis for an inference either that Mr Peich was becoming aware of the fraud, which was in fact being perpetrated, or that the accused was conscious of that awareness. Certainly the evidence in the statement of Mr MacIver is but part of the picture. However, it does seem to me to be material to that picture, and ultimately, with other evidence, may form a basis for the inference for which the Crown contends. 6 Mr Byrne SC, appearing for Ms Suteski, pointed to the generality of the evidence. He suggested that, in this respect, it was different to that of Ms Molyneux. Certainly there is this difference. Ms Molyneux, when giving evidence, had the advantage of a contemporaneous document in which she dealt with Mr Peich's inquiry. Mr MacIver does not have that advantage. The fax created at the time of Mr Peich's inquiry has been misplaced or destroyed. 7 Nonetheless, the evidence of Mr MacIver, if accepted, appears to me capable of rationally affecting (directly or indirectly) the assessment of a fact in issue. It identifies matters of concern to Mr Peich which, on their face, appear to correspond with aspects of the fraud which was then taking place. I therefore believe the evidence is relevant. **********