Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 8) [2014] NSWSC 1449 Hearing dates: 15 October 2014 Date of orders: 15 October 2014 Decision date: 15 October 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Beech-Jones J Decision: Tender of documents allowed. Catchwords: EVIDENCE – no question of principle. Cases Cited: R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1368 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Crown (Commonwealth Prosecutor) Anthony James Dickson (Accused (12/140639)) Michael John Issakidis (Accused (12/128506)) Representation: Counsel: M. McHugh SC, S. Flood, A.P.C. McGrath (Crown) B. Gross QC, C.G. Catt (Dickson) M.J. Byrne QC (Issakidis) Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Tully & Chiper (Dickson) Peter Shields (Issakidis) File Number(s): 2012/140639; 2012/128506 Publication restriction: Restriction lifted. EX TEMPORE Judgment Re admission of documents – see p2438 of transcript. 1. Following the cross-examination of Mr Adrian Compton on day 38, the Crown sought leave to tender a collection of documents relating to communications between the accused, Mr Issakidis, and a person who purports at least to have the name Jay Corbett who was purportedly writing on behalf of Dampier Finance concerning a proposed loan. The Crown case is that the person, Jay Corbett is, at least at times, an alter ego of the co-accused, Anthony Dickson, and that the correspondence was, in effect, a cover for the return of funds from the subject transaction to Mr Issakidis. 2. These documents were within the additional class of documents the Crown sought to tender but which I rejected as being, in effect, too late in R v Dickson; R v Issakidis (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 1368. 3. The particular basis for the tender sought by the Crown on day 38 arose or was said to arise out of various questions that were put to Mr Compton which appear to relate to either the completion of that transaction and suggest that there were arm's lengths dealings between Dampier and Mr Issakidis. The Crown says that, if it is denied the tender, it would be unfairly disadvantaged in dealing with the evidence that was elicited because they could not respond by pointing out that, at least for one of these transactions, its origin was not that there was some arm's length dealing between Mr Issakidis and his solicitor and Mr Compton but, at least according to the Crown, the origin was the bogus communications with Mr Corbett. 4. One of the questions that was put to Mr Compton was as follows: "What I am suggesting is that these are typical, not everything, but typical of the relationship that Michael Issakidis and yourself or Dampier had over these various loans and conditions, do you understand? A. Yes I do Mr Byrne." 1. The import of that question to my mind does seek to have Mr Compton suggest that the emails that were shown to Mr Compton were typical of not just his dealings with Mr Issakidis but those of Dampier. Other questions were more confined and concerned only the position of Mr Compton, but they were all in the context of him as an officer of Dampier. 2. In my view, in light of what I apprehend is the point sought to be made by the evidence of Mr Compton that emerged from cross-examination and the documents that were tendered through him, I consider that the Crown should be allowed by way of rebuttal, and notwithstanding my earlier judgment, to tender this material so as to, at least on its own case, complete the picture. 3. Accordingly, at the appropriate time I will permit the Crown to tender the documents comprising MFI 39. ********** Amendments 14 June 2016 - Restriction lifted. 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: 14 June 2016