Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 21) [2017] NSWSC 199 Hearing dates: 7 March 2017 Date of orders: 07 March 2017 Decision date: 07 March 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Bellew J Decision: See [5] Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Where answers to questions put to witness tended to prove the commission of an offence – Where objection was taken to answering the questions – Whether in the interests of justice for the evidence to be given Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: R v Medich (No 12) [2017] NSWSC 60 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina – Crown Ronald Edward Medich – Accused Representation: Counsel: Ms G O'Rourke SC and Ms S Harris – Crown Mr W Terracini SC, Ms M Curry and Mr T Quilter – Accused Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions, New South Wales – Crown Colin Daley Quinn – Accused File Number(s): 2010/356916 Publication restriction: Nil Judgment - EX TEMPORE (REVISED) 1. The Crown has re-called Fortunato Gattellari ("Gattellari") to give evidence in its case and proposes to lead evidence from him regarding statements allegedly made by him at a meeting of a number of persons which took place at the Cooma Correctional Centre. The evidence sought to be led from Gattellari arises from evidence given by another witness, Shayne Hatfield, concerning statements allegedly made by Gattellari at that meeting. 2. In circumstances where Gattellari is present in Court, I do not propose to further detail the nature of the evidence which is sought to be adduced from him. Gattellari's general position in relation to these issues is set out in a previous judgment: R v Medich (No 12) [2017] NSWSC 60 at [2] and following. 3. The answers to questions asked of him in respect of this issue (and related issues) may tend to prove that Gattellari has committed an offence. In those circumstances, s. 128 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) ("the Act") is again engaged. Previously when this issue arose, Gattellari raised an objection to answering such questions. However, when the provisions of s. 128 were explained to him, he indicated that he would answer the questions willingly. I informed him on that occasion that I would, in those circumstances, issue him with a certificate under s. 128. It should be noted that Gattellari had received the benefit of legal advice in relation to these issues. 4. Part way through his earlier evidence, Gattellari revised his stated position. He confirmed his objection to answering the questions, and indicated that he would not answer them willingly. Having heard submissions, I concluded that it was in the interests of justice that Gattellari be compelled to answer the questions. I concluded that I would grant him a certificate under s 128, the nature of which was again explained to him: R v Medich (No 12) (supra). 5. Gattellari has indicated to me today that he objects to answering the questions, and will not do so willingly. For the same reasons as those previously stated, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the evidence be given: R v Medich (No 12) at [18] and following. In those circumstances, Gattellari will be compelled to answer the questions. I will, at the conclusion of his evidence, grant him a certificate pursuant to s. 128 of the Act. ********** 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: 24 April 2018