Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R (Commonwealth) v Mark William Standen [2011] NSWSC 1042 Hearing dates: 3 May 2011 Decision date: 03 May 2011 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: James J Decision: I give leave for witness to revive her memory from her statement Legislation Cited: Evidence Act - s 192 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Regina, Mark William Standen Representation: T Game SC, H Dhanji SC, S Buchen (Crown) M Ierace SC, G Farmer (Accused) Commonwealth DPP (Crown) Gordon Elliot, Elliot Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2009/8922 Publication restriction: Published Judgment (on leave to revive memory from statement; see page 1406 of transcript) 1HIS HONOUR: The question is whether I should grant leave to Amanda McCormick of the Australian Federal Police, proposed to be called as a witness by the Crown, to revive her memory from the statement made by her on 30 April 2008 about events occurring in a meeting at the accused's office at the New South Wales Crime Commission on the morning of 21 February 2008. 2Ms McCormick made contemporaneous notes during the meeting, and I had already granted leave to her to revive her recollection by referring to the notes. Some parts of the notes were added by her later on 21 February. Ms McCormick's statement of 30 April 2008 is largely based on the notes she made at the meeting but, in some respects, and particularly in paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the statement, goes beyond what is recorded in her notes. 3Ms McCormick gave evidence that on the afternoon of 21 February 2008 she had meetings with Mr Venchiarutti and Mr Beveridge of the Australian Federal Police, then with Mr Watt of the Australian Federal Police, and then a separate meeting with Mr Beveridge. In the course of these meetings, or one or other of them, she was given information about an operation being conducted by the Australian Federal Police known as Operation Octans, one of the targets of which was the present accused and which led to the charges presently brought against the accused. 4Ms McCormick gave evidence, which I accept, that as a result of these meetings she appreciated the possible significance for Operation Octans of some of the events at the meeting and, in particular, any questions asked at the meeting by the accused. It would, I accept, be an unusual occurrence for a Federal Police Officer to be informed that the Federal Police were conducting an operation, one of whose targets was a very high ranking officer of the New South Wales Crime Commission. In the circumstances, I would be prepared to accept that Ms McCormick would have been likely to have retained a good recollection of what had been said at the meeting, in particular what had been said by the accused. 5On 21 February, Ms McCormick took the first steps towards preparing the statement, although I accept that on 21 February the preparation of the statement went no further than the first two formal paragraphs of the statement and what were described by Ms McCormick as a couple of bullet points. The statement is dated 30 April 2008 so that a period of more than two months elapsed between 21 February and the time of the making of the statement. I would, nevertheless, be prepared to find that the events recorded in the statement were fresh in her memory at the time at which she made the statement. 6I have taken into account the matters referred to in section 192 of the Evidence Act . I do not consider that any of the matters in subsection (2) of section 192, which I am required to take into account, would preclude the giving of leave. 7The Crown has submitted, and I would accept, that the evidence could be important as possibly supporting the Crown's allegation that the accused sought to utilise his information and contacts so as to facilitate the implementation of the conspiracy alleged by the Crown. 8I give leave to revive memory from the statement. 9It seems convenient that I should decide this matter now rather than wait for when the witness is giving evidence before the jury. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 08 September 2011