Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Pratten (No 7) [2012] NSWSC 1670 Hearing dates: 2 March 2012, 14 March 2012, 19 March 2012-23 March 2012, 26 March 2012-29 March 2012, 02 April 2012, 04 April 2012 -05 April 2012, 11 April 2012, 14 April 2012 - 30 April 2012, 01 May 2012 - 02 May 2012, 04 May 2012, 07 May 2012, 09 May 2012-22 May 2012 Decision date: 22 May 2012 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Rothman J Decision: 1. Document is admissible in the proceedings. Catchwords: CRIMINAL- Interlocutory proceedings- admissibility of evidence - tender of document - incompleteness of form Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Timothy Charles Pratten (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: K. Chapple SC with B. Hatfield (Crown) M. Leighton-Daly (Defendant) File Number(s): 2010/315475 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT 1. HIS HONOUR: I have before me an issue as to the admissibility of a document being six pages, the last page of which is said to be received with the application and is a photocopy of the driver's licence and opening pages of the passport of Mr Pratten, and the other pages of which are five pages of a six page form relating to the transition of registration of aircraft pursuant to a change in the regulatory scheme that applied to the registration of aircraft. 2. Objection is taken on the basis of the incompleteness of the form, namely, the absence from the form of page 5 of 12. Evidence has been adduced by the Crown in relation to what the 12 pages are. Exhibit N on the voir dire is an uncompleted example of the pro forma document which has been completed and forms Exhibit M. Pages 7 to 12 are an explanatory note as to the completion of the form. Page 5 is, and I draw this from page 5 of 12 in exhibit M, a section dealing with the statement to be made by the nominated registered operator. It seems to me that the absence of page 5 does not alter the relevance of the document as a whole, nor does it render the document as sought to be admitted, namely Exhibit M on the voir dire, misleading or deceptive and I reject the objection on that basis. 3. However, it seems to me page 8 of 12 is in a different category and if Exhibit M is sought to be tendered it seems to me it would need to be tendered with page 8 of 12 in order for it not to be misleading or deceptive or unfairly prejudicial. That means I reject the tender of Exhibit M in its current form but indicate I will allow it if page 8 of 12 were attached to it. CROWN PROSECUTOR: I was going to tender in fact the whole blank document together with Exhibit M on the voir dire. HIS HONOUR: Yes well it seems in one sense that is a sensible course. Given that the jury will have a document that has page 1 of 12 etcetera, not to provide them with page 7 and following of 12 will invite questions. CROWN PROSECUTOR: Yes it seems to me the only fair way to do it was to have the complete blank form tendered and Exhibit M tendered as well so they can see what the original 12 page form was. HIS HONOUR: What do you say about that Mr Leighton-Daly, I understand you maintain the objection but-- LEIGHTON-DALY: I don't wish to say anything further if that is the proposed tender. 1. I have marked those separately. That is the ruling I have made. As a consequence of that indication from the Crown I rule Exhibits M and N on the voir dire will together be admissible in the proceedings. ********** Amendments 29 April 2016 - amended case name in coversheet 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: 29 April 2016