R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 714

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sparos [2018] NSWSC 714 Hearing dates: 16 May 2018 Date of orders: 21 May 2018 Decision date: 21 May 2018 Before: Harrison J Decision: Decision further reserved Catchwords: EVIDENCE – admissions – hearsay – statements made by accused in first trial – whether admissible in second trial Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 90, 135, 137 Cases Cited: Barca v The Queen (1975) 133 CLR 82; [1975] HCA 42 Cornwall v The Queen (2007) 231 CLR 260; [2007] HCA 12 R v Esposito (1998) 45 NSWLR 442 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Luke John Sparos (Accused) Representation: Counsel: C Patrick SC (Crown) C Smith SC with D Carroll (Accused)

Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Kiki Kyriacou Lawyers (Accused) File Number(s): 2014/196615 Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: These proceedings are a retrial of Mr Sparos on a charge of murder. In 2016, Mr Sparos was tried with co-accused before M Adams J and a jury. The jury was unable to reach a verdict with respect to him. 2. Mr Sparos gave evidence in his case over several days. He was examined by his counsel Mr Djemal and extensively cross-examined by the Crown. 3. The Crown now proposes to read significant portions of that evidence to the jury upon the basis that it contains admissions or that it amounts to lies evidencing a consciousness of guilt and so qualifies as an admission. That course is opposed by Mr Sparos upon the basis first that his evidence from the previous trial does not constitute an admission and is therefore inadmissible hearsay and secondly that there is in any event a dispute about what the Crown wishes to characterise as lies. Alternatively, if the evidence or some of it does qualify as an admission, or is otherwise admissible, it should be excluded pursuant to ss 90, 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act 1995.