R v Droudis (No. 10) [2016] NSWSC 1305

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Droudis (No. 10) [2016] NSWSC 1305 Hearing dates: 13 September 2016 Date of orders: 13 September 2016 Decision date: 13 September 2016 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Johnson J Decision: Photographs (MFI36) admitted into evidence Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Judge-alone trial for murder - tender of photographs of Man Monis wearing headband with extreme religious content - sufficient nexus with Accused - photographs admitted Legislation Cited: --- Cases Cited: --- Texts Cited: --- Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Amirah Droudis (Accused) Representation: Counsel: Mr M Tedeschi QC; Mr DT Scully (Crown) Mr MJ Ierace SC; Mr RJ Wilson (Accused)

Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Accused) File Number(s): 2013/345405 Publication restriction: ---

JUDGMENT 1. JOHNSON J: The Crown has tendered seven photographs of Man Monis (MFI36). Objection is taken to the tender of the photographs essentially upon the basis that there is an insufficient nexus between these photographs and the Accused, Amirah Droudis. 2. At the outset, it is acknowledged for the Accused that these photographs form part of a number of items of evidence that were the subject of a ruling which I made on 12 August 2016, admitting evidence on a number of bases, including motive, relationship, state of mind and for tendency purposes. 3. A particular objection, however, is directed to these items which, it is said, ought not be admitted for other reasons relating to the suggested insufficient nexus with the Accused. 4. The evidence on the voir dire indicates that the photographs were taken on 31 July 2014, using a Sony mobile phone, which was seized from the Accused on 15 December 2014, when she was located in a Jeep Cherokee motor vehicle. 5. The photographs were discovered on an M-TECH USB located at the Belmore address of the Accused's family on 16 December 2014. 6. There is evidence on the voir dire that the headband which is being worn by Monis, contains Arabic script which states "We are your soldiers Mohammed, May Allah honour him and grant him peace". 7. The photographs were taken in premises at Wiley Park which were occupied by Monis and the Accused in 2014. 8. The photographs depict Monis apparently seated. In a number of the photographs, he is posing with his hands folded, sitting in front of a bookcase. The images depicted in the photographs are inconsistent with them being so-called "selfies" where he himself would have been holding the mobile phone. 9. The defence submission is that it is quite possible that Monis took these photographs himself, using a timer in the mobile phone, so that the Accused herself was not connected with the taking of the photographs. 10. The Crown submits that these photographs are one piece of evidence in a circumstantial case involving many pieces. 11. The question at this point is one of admissibility. It is the case that the Accused is not depicted in the photographs, nor is there direct evidence that she took them. There are, however, a number of factors which may provide a foundation for such a conclusion, bearing in mind that all I am considering at this stage is the admissibility of the evidence, and not what conclusions might be reached with respect to it. 12. As I have said, the photographs were recovered on her mobile phone. The M-TECH USB stick was located in the Belmore premises in December 2014. The photographs were taken in premises which were occupied by the Accused and Monis at the relevant time in 2014. 13. In my view, there is a sufficient nexus, for the purpose of admissibility, between the Accused and the photographs. What conclusions can be reached by reference to the photographs will be an issue to be considered in light of the totality of the evidence in the Crown's circumstantial case. 14. I am satisfied, however, that these photographs (MFI36) ought be admitted and I so rule.