R v Keli LANE [No 9] [2010] NSWSC 1536

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : R v Keli LANE [No 9] [2010] NSWSC 1536

HEARING DATE(S) : 09/08/2010 - 13/12/2010

JUDGMENT DATE : 24 September 2010

JUDGMENT OF : Whealy J

CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings

PARTIES : Regina (Crown) Keli LANE (Accused)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2009/256171

COUNSEL : M Tedeschi QC / H Baker (Crown) K Chapple SC / S Sloane (Accused)

SOLICITORS : Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) K Laurie, Archbold Legal Solutions (Accused)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION CRIMINAL LIST

WHEALY J

FRIDAY 24 SEPTEMBER 2010

2009/256171 REGINA v Keli LANE

JUDGMENT – On admissibility of evidence – see p 1644 of transcript 1 HIS HONOUR: This particular objection to evidence is to a summary that I think, fairly put, has probably been prepared by the legal team for the Crown which attempts to extract what it would describe as a coherent point of view from the records, exhibit AF. 2 Mr Chapple's objection is that the relevant evidence is the schedule AF. While I take him to be really conceding that a document like the present one would be helpful, provided the yellow markings are left off it, he nevertheless maintains his objection to it. 3 My view of it is this: I have to determine whether it could be admitted as evidence. In my opinion, it is not really a ready reckoner so much as a submission, in effect, as to what the Crown says AF shows as to the occupants of the units, especially during what it would argue was the critical 16 week period. 4 The vice it seems to me, although it is a useful document viewed as a submission or ready reckoner or help in understanding the Crown argument, it really does not have any legitimacy as evidence. Indeed, the fact that it comes through Mr Klein, who relevantly worked at Ray White between 2001 and 2006, gives it an apparent legitimacy as evidence which it does not really possess. It is impossible to know, for example, what Mr Chapple could put to this witness since he was not working at Ray White during those years. 5 In short, my view is that it is not admissible as evidence. In one way I am sorry it is not because I do think it would be handy for the jury. It may be that during the time submissions are made it could be used then.