Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Koloamatangi v R; Popovic v R [2020] NSWCCA 52 Hearing dates: 24 September 2019 Date of orders: 01 April 2020 Decision date: 01 April 2020 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Bell P at [384]; Price J at [385] Decision: (1) Grant the applicants leave to appeal. (2) Appeal allowed. (3) Quash the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Dragan Sekuljica and in lieu thereof enter a verdict of acquittal. (4) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act) the following portions of the judgment be suppressed until further order on the grounds set out in s 8(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the Act: [179] second sentence; [184]-[185]; [196]-[205]; [207] third sentence, after "on the way" and before "so I just"; [210] second sentence; [211]-[219]; [220] first and second sentences; [222] first sentence after "made his first induced statement". (5) Order 4 shall apply throughout the Commonwealth. (6) Grant leave to the parties and the Commissioner of Police to make an application within 7 days to vary the suppression order. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction - Miscarriage of justice – Principle of incontrovertibility – Whether evidence challenged acquittal of a non-party – Whether an abuse of process – No application of principle of incontrovertibility. CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Unreasonable verdict – Unreliable witnesses – Facts which required proof beyond reasonable doubt – Verdict of acquittal substituted. Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Cases Cited: AB v CD, EF v CD [2018] HCA 58; (2018) 93 ALJR 59 Abdallah v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 294 AJS v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 505; [2007] HCA 27 Dickson v R [2017] NSWCCA 78 Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22 Garrett v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 437; [1977] HCA 67 Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] 1 AC 529 Island Maritime Ltd v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328; [2006] HCA 30 Kanann v R [2006] NSWCCA 109 Lane v R [2018] HCA 28; (2018) 92 ALJR 689 Likiardopoulos v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 265; [2012] HCA 37 Nash v R [2019] NSWCCA 124 Popovic v R; Hristovski v R; Bubanja v R; Koloamatangi v R [2016] NSWCCA 202 R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 R v King (1985) 17 A Crim R 184 R v Koloamatangi; R v Popovic (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 1631 R v Popovic; R v Koloamatangi (No 2) [2017] NSWSC 1022 Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App.Cas. 665 RG v R [2020] NSWCCA 17 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42 Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56 Storey v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 364; [1079] HCA 39 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Principal judgment Parties: Proceedings 2012/370471 Tevi Koloamatangi (Applicant) The Crown (Respondent) Proceedings 2012/232565 Zlatan Popovic (Applicant) The Crown (Respondent) Representation: Proceedings 2012/370471 Counsel: P Boulten SC (Applicant) T F Woods (Applicant) E Balodis (Respondent) A B Douglas-Baker (Commissioner of Police) Solicitors: Katsoolis & Co (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent) Proceedings 2012/232565 Counsel: M Ramage QC (Applicant) E Balodis (Respondent) A B Douglas-Baker (Commissioner of Police) Solicitors: Toomey Defence Lawyers (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2012/370471; 2012/232565 Publication restriction: See order 4. Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Supreme Court Jurisdiction: Common Law Division Citation: R v Koloamatangi; R v Popovic (No 6) [2017] NSWSC 1631 Date of Decision: 17 November 2017 Before: N Adams J File Number(s): 2012/00232565; 2012/00370471 HEADNOTE [This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment] The applicants, Tevi Koloamatangi and Zlatan Popovic, were convicted of the 8 September 2007 murder of Dragan Sekuljica (the deceased). Each applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction. The applicants had previously been tried and convicted of the murder along with two others, Jason Hristovski and Dalibor Bubanja. However, on appeal, the convictions of Hristovski and Bubanja were set aside and a verdict of acquittal entered. The applicants also had their convictions quashed and a new trial was ordered. At the new trial, the applicants were again convicted by a jury. These convictions were the subject of this appeal. In the early hours of 8 September 2007, the deceased was murdered by a masked gunman at Splashes Nightclub in Wollongong. The Crown case was that Koloamatangi was the gunman, and that Popovic was a party to a joint criminal enterprise to kill the deceased. The Crown also led evidence that Hristovski provided the gun used for the murder. The Crown case relied heavily on the evidence of a Mr Taylor and a Mr Radz (both pseudonyms), who had each received indemnities from prosecution for giving evidence. Mr Taylor claimed to have been with Koloamatangi throughout the evening of 7-8 September. He gave evidence that they had driven from Wollongong to Sydney after dinner on 7 September to drop Koloamatangi's girlfriend home, and then returned to Wollongong. He said that they then went to Popovic's house, Hristovski's house to collect a gun, to his own house and then to Splashes Nightclub. He said he waited in the car while Koloamatangi shot the deceased, and then acted as a getaway car driver. Key evidence at the trial included records of telephone communications made by the various parties on the night of the murder, which was said to indicate their approximate locations. Mr Radz, who knew a number of the parties, claimed that Popovic and Koloamatangi had both confessed to him at various times. The applicants appealed on a number of overlapping grounds. These included the contention that it would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the conviction, as the witnesses Mr Taylor and Mr Radz had recently been condemned as liars by the Court of Criminal Appeal. Similarly, it was contended that there was a miscarriage of justice because of the admission of the evidence of Mr Taylor that Hristovski supplied the gun. Another ground of appeal was that the verdict of the jury was unreasonable, and could not be supported, having regard to the evidence. Other grounds were also relied on. The Court of Criminal Appeal unanimously granted the applicants leave to appeal, allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions, entering verdicts of acquittal. Was there a miscarriage of justice in admitting evidence that Hristovski supplied the gun? There was no miscarriage of justice in admitting evidence that Hristovski supplied the gun. Although Hristovski had previously been acquitted of the murder of the deceased, the admission of Mr Taylor's evidence did not controvert his acquittal, as Mr Hristovski was not a party in the present proceedings. However, if further proceedings on a different charge with different elements were brought against Hristovski in relation to the supply of the gun, this would controvert his previous acquittal. This was because unlike a jury acquittal, Hristovski's conviction was overturned by a judge who gave clear reasons for the acquittal, including her doubt that he provided a gun at all: [294]-[312] (Bathurst CJ), [384] (Bell P), [385] (Price J). Likiardopoulos v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 265; [2012] HCA 37; Garrett v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 437; [1977] HCA 67; R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55; Nash v R [2019] NSWCCA 124; Abdallah v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 294; RG v R [2020] NSWCCA 17; Island Maritime Ltd v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328; [2006] HCA 30; Storey v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 364 at 397; [1079] HCA 39; AJS v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 505; [2007] HCA 27, considered. Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22, referred to. It was not an abuse of process to contend in proceedings against the applicants that the murder weapon was supplied by Hristovski. The use of the witnesses Mr Taylor and Mr Radz did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute: [312]-[318] (Bathurst CJ), [384] (Bell P), [385] (Price J). Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42; Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] 1 AC 529; considered. Was the verdict of the jury unreasonable having regard to the evidence? The verdict of the jury was unreasonable and could not be supported by the evidence. It was an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning that Hristovski supplied the gun, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to the inconsistencies between Mr Taylor's evidence and other evidence, and the need to treat his evidence with caution, as well as the unreliability of Mr Radz as a witness, there was a reasonable doubt that the deceased was shot by Koloamatangi at the request of Popovic: [346]-[368] (Bathurst CJ), [384] (Bell P), [385] (Price J). Dickson v R [2017] NSWCCA 78, considered. R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35; Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573; [1990] HCA 56; Kanann v R [2006] NSWCCA 109, referred to. Judgment 1. BATHURST CJ: The applicants, Tevi Koloamatangi (Koloamatangi) and Zlatan Popovic (Popovic), were charged with the murder of Dragan Sekuljica (the deceased) who was fatally shot inside Splashes Nightclub in Wollongong in the early hours of 8 September 2007. 2. Following a trial before N Adams J and a jury (the second trial), the applicants were convicted of the murder. Koloamatangi was sentenced to life imprisonment while Popovic was sentenced to imprisonment for 34 years with a non-parole period of 26 years. 3. Each of the applicants has sought leave to appeal against their convictions, whilst Koloamatangi has also sought leave to appeal against his sentence. 4. Prior to the second trial, the applicants were charged with and tried for the murder together with Jason Hristovski (Hristovski) and Dalibor "Daki" Bubanja (Bubanja). The Crown case at this first trial was that the accused were each a party to a joint criminal enterprise to kill the deceased. It was alleged that Koloamatangi was the gunman, Popovic had arranged the murder, Hristovski had supplied the gun and Bubanja had acted as a lookout at Splashes on the night of the murder. 5. Each accused was convicted at the first trial but their convictions were set aside on appeal: Popovic v R; Hristovski v R; Bubanja v R; Koloamatangi v R [2016] NSWCCA 202 (the previous judgment). The appeal succeeded on a number of grounds. Hristovski and Bubanja successfully claimed that the verdict should be set aside as unreasonable, and a verdict of acquittal was entered. The applicants, who did not appeal on this ground, were successful on other grounds. Their convictions were quashed and a retrial was ordered. 6. It will be necessary to say more about the previous judgment subsequently in this judgment. However it should be noted that in each trial the Crown case was that Koloamatangi was the shooter and that Popovic was a party to a joint criminal enterprise to kill the deceased. The Crown case in the second trial was pithily summed-up to the jury by the trial judge in the following terms: "The third element is that the deliberate act [which caused the deceased's death] was that of the accused Tevi Koloamatangi. This is the major area of dispute in the trial against Mr Koloamatangi. You must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it was Mr Koloamatangi who shot the deceased. The Crown relies heavily on the evidence of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz to establish that Koloamatangi was the shooter. … The Crown case against Mr Popovic is that he was part of a joint criminal enterprise with Mr Koloamatangi to kill the deceased. … The evidence that Mr Popovic participated in that joint criminal enterprise also comes largely from Mr Taylor, and includes Mr Popovic giving directions to Mr Taylor, telling him the deceased was at Splashes, telling him where to get the weapon, liaising with Mr Koloamatangi by telephone just before the shooting, and arranging for Mr Koloamatangi to be paid after the shooting." 1. It should also be noted that the Crown at each trial contended that the gun was supplied by Hristovski. For this contention the Crown relied in particular on the evidence of Mr Taylor (a pseudonym), an indemnified witness who claimed to have accompanied Koloamatangi in the period leading up to the shooting, and was in the vicinity of Splashes when the shooting took place. Thus in opening, the Crown summarised its case as to what occurred leading up to the shooting in the following terms: "I expect you will hear some evidence in this trial from Mr Taylor that after he and Koloamatangi returned from dropping off Koloamatangi's girlfriend in Sydney, they drove back to Wollongong and went to the accused Popovic's unit. There they had a brief discussion and then the two men left and drove to a place called Warrawong to collect a firearm. I expect that you will hear, and learn, during this trial that at 1.03 in the morning Mr Popovic had a 72 second telephone conversation with Mr Koloamatangi. At 1.08 Mr Popovic made a telephone call to a man called [Hristovski]. At 1.09 Mr Popovic made another call to Mr Koloamatangi. I expect that Taylor will tell you that he drove Koloamatangi from Wollongong, from the home of Popovic, to a place at Warrawong, where they stopped outside a man's home. He, the man called [Hristovski], came outside [and] handed over a firearm to Koloamatangi. I expect that you will hear some evidence of a discussion between Koloamatangi and the man [Hristovski] about the quality of the firearm that he had been provided with. Then I expect Taylor will tell you about a conversation that he had with the accused Koloamatangi about what was intended to be done with the gun. I expect that you will hear that following that, Taylor drove with Mr Koloamatangi to Taylor's then home at Corrimal, where he sourced some clothing for the accused Koloamatangi to wear, including a beanie; the beanie in which they cut eyeholes to enable it to be worn as a disguise. I expect that another one of the telephone records will put Mr Koloamatangi and Taylor in the vicinity of Splashes Nightclub and during the period, until after the time of the shooting, which was very shortly after 3 o'clock in the morning, during that time the man Taylor will tell you that he was waiting in the car, but had his phone turned off. I expect that Taylor will tell you that he waited for a long time in the car." The evidence at the trial 1. Because in the present appeal, the applicants content that the verdict was unreasonable, it is necessary to set out evidence from the second trial in some detail. Mr Joseph Habak 1. Mr Habak was working as a security officer at Splashes Nightclub on the night in question. He agreed that Splashes was a nightclub situated at the very bottom floor of the Novotel building at North Beach in Wollongong. 2. Mr Habak said that on that night he was carrying out duties in the footpath area outside the club, which included checking the identification of people who wanted to go into the club. He said he was working there with a Mr Peter Somerville. 3. Mr Habak said that it was normal on a Friday and Saturday night for the club to remain open until the early hours of the morning, usually 3 am. 4. Mr Habak recalled being outside the club at around 3 am on the morning of the murder. He said that Mr Somerville was near him outside in the foyer area. He said that he recalled the deceased leaving the club and crossing the road with two men, including a taller man who he referred to as "Big Mick". 5. Mr Habak said that the next thing he realised was that he heard some sort of "cap shots", and saw the deceased running straight back towards him, going towards the club. He said that the deceased ran as fast as he could back inside the nightclub. Mr Habak then turned around and saw a gunman with a balaclava run straight past him into the nightclub. He recalled hearing a couple of shots in the foyer and his colleague Mr Somerville wanting to go back in. He said that there were two more shots and this time they were inside the club. He said that he grabbed Mr Somerville and said "Do not follow, do not go inside that place". He told him to get into the corner and stay down. 6. Mr Habak said that moments later, the gunman ran out the door and crossed to the beachfront side opposite the Novotel. He said that he ran back inside and saw the deceased lying down, and that people were performing first aid. 7. Mr Habak was asked to describe the clothing the gunman was wearing. He said he just recalled that there was a black balaclava and that the top he was wearing had a hoodie, and was big and pretty baggy. 8. In cross-examination he agreed that he had told the police that the gunman was about five foot six inches tall and of small build. Mr John Harris 1. Mr Harris witnessed the shooting. He said he had seen the man who was shot a little time earlier, naming him as the deceased. . He said he heard a shot and saw the deceased fall to the ground at the centre of the bar, and a man with a gun run over, stand over the top of the deceased, put the gun at the back of his head and pull the trigger. He said the shooter then ran straight out of the club. Mr Harris said that the shooter was not that tall but could not say anything else about his build or anything else apart from the fact that he was wearing a blue and white striped hoodie, with the hood over his head. 2. Mr Harris also gave evidence that he recalled a conversation earlier at Splashes Nightclub between two men, one of whom was the deceased. He said that the men were talking in two languages, one of which was English. He said at the time of the conversation they were pretty close to each other, describing the conversation as a normal conversation you have with a person under a metre or a metre away from each other. 3. Mr Harris was cross-examined on a statement made by him to the police, and he agreed that he described the jacket the shooter was wearing as one which was too big for him. Mr Colin Walker 1. Mr Walker was also a security officer at Splashes Nightclub on the evening of 7 September 2007. He was responsible for supervising the security guards that evening. 2. Mr Walker agreed he knew some of the patrons by name, including a tall man known as Mick, and another man known as Daki Bubanja. 3. He said Mick was with Bubanja through the night. 4. Mr Walker said that at one stage he saw those two men standing at the bar with two other men, one of whom had very dark skin, and another of solid build wearing a black long sleeved shirt. He identified the man of solid build as the deceased. 5. Mr Walker then gave evidence that at some stage during the night or early morning he saw Bubanja and the deceased talking to each other. He stated: "They were talking to each other, and then one bloke fired up. The guy with the dark shirt, he fired up." 1. By "fired up", he said he meant the man was getting cranky. He said that they were just having an argument and then Bubanja left. 2. Subsequently, he saw Mick and Bubanja talking inside the toilets. 3. Mr Walker then described the shooting in a similar manner to that described by the other witnesses. Like the other witnesses he confirmed the gun was black. Mr Peter Somerville 1. Mr Somerville was another security officer. On the night in question he was one of the security supervisors at Splashes Nightclub. He said that for most of the night he worked at the entrance door, but from time to time went inside to make sure things were alright. He said that on the night in question there were between 100 to 150 patrons in the nightclub. 2. Mr Somerville recalled that at about a quarter to three or three in the morning, three patrons left the club. He said one of these men was taller than the other two, and of solid build. He recalled that a taxi pulled up and two of the men started to get into the back of the taxi whilst the third went around to the front. He said he then noticed someone coming out of the bushes. He said the person was dressed in all dark clothing, including a balaclava and hoodie. 3. Mr Somerville said that he heard two or three "cap shots" and saw the person who had been getting into the back seat run back across the road towards him and the club. He said that the person who came out of the bushes was running directly behind at a distance. He said that both men ran past him, and that as the second ran past he went to give chase, still not knowing the full extent of what was happening. It was at that time that the other security officer told him to take cover and that the man had a gun, and then he stopped pursuing him. 4. Mr Somerville said that he heard another two or three shots from inside the club, and that he saw the person who had run in second run straight out very, very fast across the road into the bushes and down towards the bike track. 5. Mr Somerville said that he then went inside to see what was going on, and saw a guard who had gotten shot, Robert Gyles, and tried to offer some assistance to him. He said that after giving that assistance he saw the deceased lying on the ground. 6. In cross-examination, Mr Somerville said that the only thing he saw in the shooter's hand was a black object, and that the shooter was leaning forward with his arms outstretched and holding the black object in front of him. Mr Robert Gyles 1. Mr Gyles was a security officer at Splashes Nightclub on the night in question. From about 2 am he moved to duties inside the nightclub. 2. Mr Gyles said that at around three o'clock he heard a door slam and turned around and noticed a guy running. He said that he approached the man and said "Put [your] arms out". He grabbed hold of the man and said "You can't come in here, mate". He looked and noticed that the man had something like a hoodie on, which looked like a balaclava. He then heard a loud noise and felt pain in his left arm which folded him over, and the man "took off" and ran inside towards the bar area. 3. He said he then heard two or three shots. At that stage he thought it was a prank, because he had a jacket on and did not know he had been actually shot. He said he was going to approach the man again as he was running out, but saw what looked like a gun pointed at his head, so he covered his face and the man ran outside. 4. He said the gun looked like a small black handgun. Mr Oliver Karovski 1. Mr Karovski was responsible for organising the entertainment at Splashes that night. He said that he was in the vicinity of the bar when he heard what he described as a pop. He looked in the direction of the bar and saw a man running, chasing another individual. He said that the person who was chasing ran to within a metre of the other and shot him in the head. He said that the guy who was shot fell to the floor, and that as he fell to the floor the shooter lent over and shot him in the head again. Mr Karovski said the shooter was wearing a dark jacket and had his face covered. He said he did not notice anything about the gun. Mr Saso Mihailov 1. Mr Mihailov was assisting with the entertainment at the nightclub. He said that at three o'clock he was standing at the bar with a man called Darko Hristovski. He said that he heard a loud bang and saw a guy wearing a balaclava, positioning his hand over his face and running with a gun in front of his arms. He said that he grabbed Darko, and ran to a security office and locked them inside it. 2. He said that the man with the gun had dark attire and a balaclava on. He said that the man's build was slim to fair. 3. Mr Mihailov said that after he closed the door to the security office, he heard two more bangs. 4. In cross-examination Mr Mihailov was referred to the statement he made to the police. He agreed that he described the gun to the police as a black gun which looked like a gun that the police use. He said it was a black gun held in two hands. He agreed that he also told the police that the man's balaclava had eye holes cut in it and that you could see white skin around his eyes. 5. It was not suggested that the man Darko Hristovski was Jason Hristovski, who was alleged to have supplied the gun. Mr Miodrog Milisic 1. Mr Milisic said that in 2007 he worked in the construction industry in Wollongong. He said he knew the deceased through work carried out in that area. Mr Milisic said that he also knew a man called George or Zoran Bubanja, the deceased being the godfather of one of this man's children. 2. Mr Milisic said that he went to Splashes at about 11:30 pm on the night of 7 September with Stan Petrovic and Daki Bubanja, the son of George Bubanja. He said that when he got inside the nightclub he saw the deceased and talked to him. 3. Mr Milisic said he left Splashes by himself at about three o'clock. 4. Mr Milisic said he saw the deceased going towards a car stopped on the road. He said he heard a couple of bangs, and saw the deceased running back inside the club and a person running after him. He said that the last thing he remembered was going back inside and seeing the deceased on the floor. The only thing he recalled about the man who ran in behind the deceased was that he was wearing a black hoodie, with the hood over his head. He did not see the man's face at all. Mr Milos Bolic 1. Mr Bolic said that on Friday 7 September he went to Collegians Rugby League Club at Wollongong with two friends, Alex Ponjorac and Rajko. There he met, among others, Bubanja, Stan Petrovic and Mr Milisic. He said that he, Mr Ponjorac and Rajko decided to leave Collegians and go to Splashes Nightclub. He said that this occurred sometime between 9 and 10 pm. He said that he saw the deceased at the nightclub as well as Bubanja, Stan Petrovic and Mr Milisic. 2. Mr Bolic recalled that he left the nightclub before twelve o'clock that evening. In cross-examination he was asked to assume that the deceased arrived at Splashes at around 12:30 am and he accepted that if that was the case he left some time after midnight. Mr Adrian Castagna 1. Mr Castagna was employed as the Master of Ceremonies at Splashes Nightclub. He said that on Friday 7 September he had a night off, but ended up going with a friend of his to the nightclub. He said that he went to the toilet and saw three men there, talking together in another language with what he described as a bit of "oomph". He said by that, he meant that there was a lot of body language added to the words being used, and he understood some of the words being used which were swear words. He stated that the language was either Serbian or Macedonian. 2. Mr Castagna recalled that after he came back from the toilets, he requested his boss at the time, Milosh, to remove the people in the bathroom from the premises. 3. Mr Castagna said that at around three o'clock he was doing some work on a voluntary basis shutting down equipment and that he heard a noise, which he described as "[m]ore of a pop, not a bang". He went inside the sound area and checked on the amplifiers, and when he came out he saw the gunman running out. 4. Mr Castagna recalled that the gunman was wearing a hooded jacket. He said that the gunman ran past him at a distance of a couple of metres. He said that he followed him outside the club. 5. Mr Castagna said that as he came out onto the staircase in front of Splashes there were a couple of people to the left and to the right, and that the gunman turned around and pointed the gun towards them, in Mr Castagna's direction. He said he did not recall much at all about the gun. 6. Mr Castagna agreed that he told the police in his statement that the man was about 180 cm tall and of medium to large build. He agreed that he also told the police that the man was wearing a dark coloured hooded Adidas spray jacket with three stripes down the arm. He also agreed that he told the police that the gunman was holding a black coloured pistol which looked like a revolver. 7. Mr Castagna agreed in cross-examination that, although he recognised some swear words in the conversation between the men inside the bathroom, he did not understand the context in which these words were used. Mr Alexander Gregory 1. Mr Gregory was working as a bar attendant from 9 pm on Friday 7 September to 3 am on Saturday 8 September. He said that at around 3 am there were about 20 people left in the bar. 2. Mr Gregory said he heard a male voice and a loud bang. He looked out and saw a man wearing a jacket and a balaclava. He said that the man was hunched over, looking down. He said that the balaclava had two eye holes and a mouth hole. 3. Mr Gregory said that he moved to a storeroom, and heard a second bang. He went and found other staff members, and they went around to the other side of the bar and saw a man lying on the ground. 4. Mr Gregory said that he did not see a gun, but did say that the gunman's skin was white and his eyes were dark. He said the man was about 185 cm tall. 5. Mr Gregory agreed in cross-examination that when he made his statement to the police he said that he could see white skin through the eyeholes and the mouth hole of the balaclava. Mr Aco Stevceski 1. Mr Stevceski gave evidence that, on the evening of 7 September, he went with a man named Nikola Vacic and the deceased to a place called The Brewery. He said that after that, they went to a hotel in Wollongong called The Harp, but that Mr Vacic was not allowed in. 2. He said that they later went to Splashes, and that when they got there Mr Vacic and the deceased met some people at the bar. He identified them as Nico and Daki. He was asked if the man called Daki was Daki Bubanja and he said he did not know his second name. Mr Stevceski said he did not stay with the deceased whilst they were at Splashes but that he saw him from time to time during the night. After refreshing his recollection from his statement, he said that the deceased would have been talking to Daki. 3. Mr Stevceski said that he did not see any argument occur between Daki and the deceased. 4. In cross-examination he agreed that until the deceased suggested they go to Splashes, there had been no plan to go there. Ms Angela Djuraki 1. Ms Djuraki said her husband was a close friend of the deceased and a friend of Popovic. She said that she recalled in 2007 going to a café in the Wollongong Mall for a celebration with her husband. She said that the deceased, his wife and Popovic were also there. 2. Ms Djuraki said that in the first half of 2007 she and her family were living on a farm property at Kembla Grange. She recalled Popovic visiting with another person known as Doc. She recalled that Popovic asked if Doc could stay at their place for a night. She said that that was the only time she met Doc. 3. Ms Djuraki said that in May 2007 she went overseas with her children to visit her family. She said she regularly telephoned her husband and from time to time spoke with the deceased, as he was spending a lot of time with her husband and sometimes would answer the phone. 4. Ms Djuraki said she recalled a telephone conversation with the deceased where there was a reference to a person in Serbian history. The deceased said to her that Zlatan (Popovic) was the biggest traitor in Serbian history after Novakovic. She said Novakovic was a big traitor in Serbian history, that he was a bodyguard for a leader of the Serbian people in the war against the Turks and he killed the leader for money. 5. Ms Djuraki said that she returned home on 2 September and was pretty sure she saw the deceased on that day. She said that the deceased was very upset about things going on with Popovic and that he repeated that Popovic was a big traitor. Mr Stanko Petrovic 1. Prior to September 2007, Mr Petrovic undertook an apprenticeship with Miodrog Milisic. Mr Petrovic agreed that he met the deceased during the second year of his apprenticeship. 2. Mr Petrovic agreed that on the evening of 7 September he went to Collegians Leagues Club at roughly nine o'clock. He said he met Mr Milisic there who was with Dalibor Bubanja. He agreed that Bubanja went by the nickname Daki. 3. Mr Petrovic agreed that at some point they went to Splashes Nightclub. He could not recall who suggested they go there. 4. Mr Petrovic was asked what time he left Splashes and said he could not remember, but did say that he left with Mr Ponjorac and somebody called Rajko. He said they went to get a kebab. 5. He said that after he had the kebab he headed back in the direction of Splashes. He said that he was walking by himself and that he stopped to have a smoke. He said that while he was sitting having a smoke something "went off like a firecracker" and he looked up and saw "a bloke chasing another bloke with a gun and shooting him". He said they were on the road when he first saw them running back towards the club. 6. Mr Petrovic said he observed that it was the deceased being chased. He said that when he first saw the deceased, the deceased and Mr Milisic were going to get into a taxi. 7. Mr Petrovic noticed that the man chasing the deceased was wearing all black. He said that the last he saw was the two of them running into the club. Mr Robert Freeborough 1. Mr Freeborough stated that he knew the deceased in 2006, and that they were good friends. He stated that he also knew a man called Miodrog Milisic, known as Mickey, who had an electrical business. 2. Mr Freeborough said he knew Daki and a man called Marco Bubanja, who were brothers. He agreed that he met their father, whose name was Zoran. 3. Mr Freeborough said that he saw the deceased at the North Wollongong Hotel on the afternoon of Friday 7 September. He said he arrived at the hotel at about 2:30 pm. He said that as well as the deceased, there was a man there called Ned Tripkovic, who left with the deceased later in the afternoon. 4. Mr Freeborough was then asked about events at the North Wollongong Hotel on the previous Friday, the week before the deceased was killed. He said that on that day he saw Daki and Marco Bubanja and their father Zoran at the hotel. He said they were not part of the group he usually met with on a Friday afternoon at the hotel. 5. Mr Freeborough said that he saw the deceased at the hotel on that day and had a drink with him. He said that Zoran and his two sons were in the lower section of the hotel, while he and the deceased were sitting on the verandah area. 6. Mr Freeborough recalled that the deceased left at one stage to go and speak to Daki and his father. He said that the deceased stayed down there with them for a few minutes. He said that when he returned he asked the deceased if everything was alright, and that the deceased "shrugged it off". CCTV evidence 1. Excerpts from CCTV cameras of the North Wollongong Hotel on 31 August 2007 were played to the jury. The tender of the CCTV footage formed the subject of Ground 3 of Popovic's grounds of appeal. 2. CCTV footage was played of Splashes Nightclub on 7 and 8 September 2007. Mr Peter Taylor (a pseudonym) 1. Mr Taylor stated that in 2007 he had known Popovic for nine or 10 years. He said that one of his jobs around the time of the murder was working as a delivery driver for Mamma's Pizza, a shop owned by Popovic's mother. 2. Mr Taylor said that he did not know Koloamatangi at that time, but that he first met him two weeks prior to the murder. He said that he met him through Popovic. At that time he knew Koloamatangi as Doc. 3. Mr Taylor said that before the murder he knew a man called Dalibor Bubanja. He initially said that he had met him between two and four weeks before the murder, but then stated that he was not actually 100 per cent sure whether he had met him prior to the murder. 4. Mr Taylor was asked whether he had ever been to Collegians Rugby League Club. He said that he had, and that he recalled going with Popovic. He said he recalled going there some two to three days prior to the murder. He was referred to records showing that he went there on 6 September 2007, and said that this was roughly between six and nine o'clock in the evening. He said that he went there with Popovic and Popovic's wife, Emma. He said that Koloamatangi, his girlfriend also named Emma, Bubanja and Ali Nemr were there as well. 5. Mr Taylor said he was at the club for roughly an hour, and that during that time the three or four males there were having a private conversation. He said that he was standing back deliberately, not trying to partake in the conversation, and wanting not to be associated with the particulars of what was going on. He said that he did not hear any of the conversation at all. 6. Mr Taylor said he recalled the day before the deceased was murdered. He said that he saw Popovic that day, first at Kings Chinese restaurant and then at Popovic's unit in George Street later that evening. He said that he went to Kings Chinese restaurant between six and seven o'clock at night time. 7. Mr Taylor said he met up with Popovic at the restaurant with Koloamatangi, his girlfriend Emma, Popovic's wife Emma and two others whose names he could not remember. He said that one of these two was male and one was female. 8. Mr Taylor stated that there was general conversation at the dinner. He said that Popovic asked him to drop Koloamatangi and his girlfriend back to Sydney. He was asked whether there was any other conversation between Popovic and Koloamatangi at the table, and he said that they were quietly whispering between themselves. He said that he did not hear a word of what they said. 9. Mr Taylor said that he left the restaurant at roughly 8 o'clock. He said that he had his car in Wollongong and that he, Koloamatangi and Koloamatangi's girlfriend drove to Sydney, dropped Koloamatangi's girlfriend off there, and returned to Wollongong. He said he thought he drove to the Rocks, saying that it was close to the Sydney Harbour Bridge. 10. Shortly after giving this evidence, Mr Taylor said that he forgot to mention earlier that Popovic had told him to go to Sydney, and then call him and return to his (Popovic's) unit. 11. Mr Taylor said that he could not be 100 per cent sure of the route he took to drop Emma off in Sydney, but that it would have been either Bulli Pass or Mount Ousley. He said that the drive took about an hour or an hour and 15 minutes, and that the drive back took roughly the same time. 12. Mr Taylor said that when he got back to Wollongong he called Popovic and proceeded to Popovic's unit. He was asked when he got there, and replied, "I would say eleven, roughly eleven or twelve o'clock. I'm not –". He said that when he arrived at the unit Popovic and his wife, Emma, were there. He said that she was asleep on the floor. He said he and Koloamatangi went into the unit, and that they all went into the kitchen area. 13. Mr Taylor was asked what happened next, and said that Popovic and Koloamatangi continued or started to have a conversation. He said that he did not hear much of it, and that he was deliberately standing back from the conversation. He was asked if he overheard any of the conversation and said, "Yes they were planning to go and see a person by the name of Dragan". He said he may have met the deceased roughly a month before that. 14. Mr Taylor was asked if he heard any more of the conversation, and gave the following answer: "I heard that they were going to commit a crime against [the deceased]. I wasn't sure what it involved. I thought it was money or some bodily harm like a beating or something. They were my thoughts, I wasn't told precisely and we were going to pick up something from this Jason Hristovski." 1. He said that it was Popovic who said something about picking something up from Hristovski. He then said that Popovic and Koloamatangi began "whispering in each other's ear", and that then they left to go to Popovic's house. He said that whilst he was in the kitchen Popovic's wife woke up and went to bed. 2. Mr Taylor said that he was not told in the conversation what was to be picked up from Hristovski. 3. He was asked what happened next, and said, "Me and [Koloamatangi] went to [Hristovski]'s house and made some phone calls to [Hristovski] or [Popovic]. [Hristovski] came out of his house and handed, handed a rolled up bank bag in through the window of the door". He said that Hristovski's house was in the suburb of Warrawong, about a 15 minute drive from Popovic's unit. 4. He was then asked the following questions and gave the following answers: "Q. Now he handed this rolled up bank bag, can you describe the bag? A. It was a, it was an old bank bag like, what do they call it, hessian, or the white bags that you used to get from the bank, yellowy. In it was a gun, that is something, when it was opened up. Q. Where was it opened up and who opened it up? A. [Koloamatangi] opened it up in the car and – Q. Where did that happen? A. That was out the front of [Hristovski]'s house. Q. Okay he opened it up and what did you see? A. A revolver, a black revolver. … Q. What happened next? A. There was a discussion between [Koloamatangi] and [Hristovski] about the gun there. Q. Tell us as best you can what was said about it? A. [Koloamatangi] said 'What the fuck is this? We were supposed to get something better than this', the gun being as to my knowledge a lady's handbag, a handbag snub nosed pistol which can be carried in a lady's handbag. Q. What, if anything, did [Hristovski] say in response to that? A. He said 'That's all I have'. Q. What happened then? A. We returned, we returned back to my house. Q. Can I ask you this, why did you go to your house? A. To get some clothes, um, to get some clothes for Doc to get dressed in to go and do the shooting. Q. By that time you knew it was a shooting, is that right? A. I was pretty aware that it was, someone was going to get shot. Q. So why did you go to your house? A. To get a disguise, clothes. Q. What happened when you got to your house? A. I went to my house and got some long pants, some boots, a beanie and a hoodie and returned to the car. Q. Before you got the clothes what was Doc wearing do you recall? A. I can't be a hundred per cent on the clothes that he was wearing. Maybe only a shirt and shorts, I am not too sure. Q. Anyway you went and got you said long pants? A. Correct. Q. What sort of pants? A. It could have been camouflage or green khaki pants. Q. You said some boots? A. Some boots, yes. Q. What sort of boots? A. They would have been just steel capped issue. Q. What, like work boots? A. Yeah, steel capped work boots. Q. And you said a hoodie, what is a hoodie? A. A hoodie, like a jumper with a hood. Q. What colour was that do you recall? A. It was navy blue. Q. Anything else? A. There was a beanie and gloves. I am not too sure on the gloves, if I had them. Q. And the beanie, what colour was that do you recall? A. It would have been black. Q. All right was anything done with the beanie? A. The beanie was made into a balaclava. Q. How was that done? A. Cut the beanie apart and put eye holes in with some scissors. Q. Who did that? A. In my statement I wrote that I did it. At the time I am not sure who actually did it, whether it was me or [Koloamatangi] but in the statement I said I done it. Q. Are you saying you don't – BRASCH: I object. CROWN PROSECUTOR: I haven't said anything. Q. Are you telling us you said that you said you did it in the statement, is that right? A. That is correct but as I remember now [Koloamatangi] did cut the holes in it." 1. Mr Taylor said that his house was between 20 and 30 minutes travel by car from Hristovski's house, about 15 minutes back to Wollongong. 2. Mr Taylor said they drove to Splashes Nightclub to shoot a person by the name of Dragan. He said that they (he and Koloamatangi) were called by phone and told that the deceased was there. He said that Popovic either called him or Koloamatangi. 3. Mr Taylor said that when they got to Splashes they did a couple of laps of the nightclub, and that he then parked the car in the north car park, out of the way. He said he did that so he would not be seen on CCTV. 4. He said that after they parked, he pointed out a bunch of bushes and told Koloamatangi to go there and wait for the deceased to exit the nightclub. He said that the bushes were directly opposite the nightclub, across the road. 5. Mr Taylor was asked how long he was parked in the car park and he said for roughly an hour to an hour and a half, maybe two hours. He said that after about an hour or an hour and a half he heard shots fired. He said that he heard between three or four shots, separated by maybe one, two or three seconds. He said he then started the car and moved it to the exit of the car park, and waited for Koloamatangi to return. 6. At that point in the examination, the Crown asked Mr Taylor whether he had made some statements to the police concerning the incident in question, the first being on 4 June 2012. He agreed that he was given an indemnity under the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) to protect him from prosecution for his part in the killing of the deceased. He agreed that this indemnity required him to co-operate and give evidence in these proceedings. 7. Mr Taylor said that after he moved to the entrance opposite the car park he left the car running and waited for Koloamatangi to run back to the car, which he did within a couple of minutes. He said they then drove towards Sydney to Koloamatangi's home. He said that this was in Coward Street, Mascot, and that it took roughly 45 to 60 minutes to get there. 8. Mr Taylor said that during the course of the drive he asked Koloamatangi, "Did you do what you had to do?" and that Koloamatangi said yes. He said that during the drive he spoke to Popovic on the telephone asking him if he could "fix Doc up", meaning could he get some money for Koloamatangi. He said that the call was not from his phone. 9. Mr Taylor said that Popovic responded, "Go home and come and see me tomorrow". 10. Mr Taylor said that after he reached Koloamatangi's home, he dropped him off and returned to Wollongong. He said that Koloamatangi took the clothing he provided him with, and that he did not get any of it back. 11. Mr Taylor said that he got back to Wollongong between 5 and 6 am. He said that the next day he went to get money off Popovic for Koloamatangi and got around $15,000. He said that he gave the money to Koloamatangi when he returned to Mascot the following day. 12. Mr Taylor said that Koloamatangi's girlfriend counted the money in their presence and that the money was short. He said it had nothing to do with him so he went back to Wollongong and relayed the message to Popovic that the money was short. He remembered Popovic saying in the following days, "the police are watching and it is red hot and tell Doc to wait for the money". 13. Mr Taylor was referred to the period before the shooting, and said that in the weeks leading up to it he saw Popovic two or three times a week. He recalled at some stage before the shooting, going to a car park opposite where Popovic lived and meeting Koloamatangi, Bubanja, Hristovski and a man named Victor. He said that during conversation reference was made to the deceased and a man named Dusan Krstic. He said that Bubanja referred to the deceased and Dusan as "dogs". He recalled having a separate conversation with Popovic in which Popovic said to him, "It's war. Are you with me?" and that he replied, "Yes. You don't have to ask". Mr Taylor said that he did not know what Popovic was talking about. 14. Mr Taylor said he recalled telling the police about the gun. He remembered that it was a revolver with six bullets, with the brand "Astra" on the handle. He said that he saw the "Astra" sign on the handle the first time they picked it up from Hristovski's house when it was pulled out of the bag. He said he thought he saw Koloamatangi put the gun back into the bag. 15. Mr Taylor agreed that between 2007 and 2012, he did not have contact with the police. 16. Mr Taylor said that after the shooting, Koloamatangi disposed of the gun. He said he knew this because Popovic asked him to retrieve the gun. He asked Koloamatangi whether he could have the gun so that he could dispose of it, and Koloamatangi said that he had already gotten rid of the gun, throwing it into a housing commission project around Surry Hills. 17. Mr Taylor said that, apart from the $15,000 he took to Koloamatangi the following day, he also took other money to him over a two to four week period. He estimated that these were bundles of $5,000 and $2,000. He repeated that he did not count the money. He said that Koloamatangi's girlfriend, Emma, was there when he handed over the money, but that Popovic was not. 18. Mr Taylor agreed that he was shown a photograph of a gun by the police and said this gun was silver. He said that the gun he saw on the night was black. He described it as a snub-nosed woman's pistol, meaning that the barrel of the gun is shortened so that it can go into a woman's handbag. 19. Mr Taylor was referred again to the dinner at Kings Chinese restaurant on 7 September 2007, and to the discussion when he was told to collect something from Hristovski's house. He said that at that stage he was told by Popovic that the deceased was at the North Wollongong hotel, and if anything changed he would let him know. He said that they later received a phone call that the deceased was at Splashes. He said this occurred between midnight and 1 am. 20. Prior to Mr Taylor being cross-examined, a schedule of telephone calls was tendered as Exhibit O, and a guide to the telephone calls as Exhibit P. A critical issue in the trial and in this appeal is what was shown by that schedule of telephone calls. Mr Taylor's cross-examination Cross-examination on behalf of Koloamatangi 1. Mr Taylor was first cross-examined by senior counsel for Koloamatangi. 2. Mr Taylor agreed that his timeline commenced at whatever time it was that he left Kings Chinese restaurant for the trip back to Sydney with Koloamatangi and his girlfriend Emma. He was shown the record of calls and text messages he received from a woman named Tara Wilton, and agreed that this was at a time he was at the restaurant. 3. He was shown a call at 7:47:21 from which it appeared that Popovic's phone was in contact with Ms Wilton. He agreed that this showed he was still at the restaurant at 7:47 pm, and that there were other communications or attempted communications going down to 8:48:53, when Ms Wilton rang Popovic's phone. He agreed that all those communications occurred whilst the seven of them were at the Chinese restaurant. He agreed in those circumstances that the earliest time he left the Chinese restaurant was close to nine o'clock. 4. Mr Taylor was referred in the schedule of telephone calls (Exhibit O) to a call made at 10:16:32 from Koloamatangi to a man called Levy which was made from Mascot. He agreed that it appeared that at 16 minutes past 10 he and Koloamatangi were in the vicinity of Mascot. He was then referred to a call at 23:48 from Koloamatangi's phone to an unknown person made from the Newtown area. It was put to him that at 11:48 pm they were still in the city, and he responded, "That's what [the] phone documents say". It was also put to him that if that was correct, they were in the city for an hour and a half, and did not drive straight back to Wollongong. He responded that as he recalled, they drove straight home from Sydney. 5. Mr Taylor was also referred to a number of telephone calls and messages passing between Koloamatangi and a Mr Brett Reynolds, and it was suggested to him that he drove Koloamatangi to Alexandria to supply drugs to Mr Reynolds. He denied this. 6. Ultimately, it was again suggested to him that the telephone records showed that he and Koloamatangi were in the Sydney metropolitan area for at least an hour and a half, and that they did not go directly back to Wollongong. He stated that that could be right. 7. Mr Taylor was then referred to a phone call about an hour later at 00:49:58 from Koloamatangi to Popovic. It was suggested to him that at 10 to 1, they were in Wollongong but had not met up with Popovic because Koloamatangi was ringing him. Mr Taylor agreed that was what it looked like. 8. Mr Taylor ultimately agreed that he arrived back in Wollongong at around 10 to 1. It was suggested to him that he then went to Mamma's Pizza. He said he went straight to Popovic's house with Koloamatangi. 9. In that context he was referred to a telephone call at 1:15 am from Koloamatangi to Popovic. It was put to him that Koloamatangi was at the Crown Street Mall and Popovic in the Wollongong CBD, so they were still not together. Mr Taylor said that this was obvious, if they were making phone calls to each other. He was then asked these questions and gave these answers: "Q. All I'm suggesting to you is that they, when you got back to Wollongong, you did not immediately go to Zlatan Popovic's place? A. No I did go straight to there. Q. Well how do you account for the fact that over at least a 20-minute period, Mr Popovic and Mr Koloamatangi are ringing each other within the Wollongong area? A. Because that's where the house is. Q. Yes, but if they're in the same room together, why would they be ringing each other? A. I don't know. Q. They didn't ring each other when they were in the same room, did they? A. I don't know. … Q. You were there, Mr Taylor, surely if you'd seen two people ringing each other on the phone in the same room you would have thought there was something rather odd going on? A. Well usually you call someone when you're going to meet them. Could be outside their house. Q. For 20 minutes? A. No. That wouldn't happen. Q. No. You see, the first phone call, as I said, which is to Zlatan Popovic by Mr Koloamatangi in Wollongong, was at 12:49 and 58 seconds. So nearly 10 to 1 in the morning. And that's halfway down the page, on page 14. And he is ringing from the Wollongong CBD – Wollongong CBD, and he's ringing Mr Popovic, who was at Wollongong CBD 3. So they're not in the same place there, are they? A. That could have been the way to the unit." 1. Mr Taylor was then referred to calls between Popovic and Koloamatangi between 12:52:21 and 1:09:24. He accepted as correct that they were not together at that time, otherwise they would not be ringing each other. 2. Mr Taylor was then asked these questions: "Q. What I am suggesting to you is that those telephone records, that entry at 1:15 and 18 seconds, indicates that Mr Koloamatangi and Mr Popovic are not in the same place, that is that they are not in Mr Popovic's unit? A. That would be correct. Q. Now you estimated, didn't you, that you went to – when you got to Mr Popovic's unit, you were there for about an hour before you set off to Jason Hristovski's? A. Correct. Q. And you said that consistently haven't you, that it was about an hour? A. That's correct. Q. So your hour, on these records, doesn't start until 1:15 does it? A. I'm not sure of the timeline. Q. Well – A. To be precise." 1. Mr Taylor then said that by the time of the 1:15 am call they could have been at Popovic's unit. He was then referred to the call at 1:09:24, and agreed that at that stage, Popovic and Koloamatangi were not in the same place. 2. He was then asked the following questions and gave the following answers: "Q. So 1:09 and 24 seconds, they're not in the same place, are they? A. Yes. That's correct. Q. So let's be generous and say that your hour starts at 1:09, that means that you don't leave Mr Popovic's unit until sometime around 2 o'clock, or shortly after, if you're there for an hour? A. Well again that was an estimated time on the meeting. That was estimated. It's four years. Four years ago I gave – after the incident I gave the statement. … Q. I want to suggest that [counsel for Popovic at the first trial] said – that he took you to your statement of 9 July where you went through an exercise with the police where you gave details of various times. I suggest that – and do you remember saying to the police, at paragraph 10, we remained at [Popovic]'s unit for about one hour. And you answered yes. The next question was: 'Q. So from the time you got back, you say you were there about an hour, is that right? A. Yes. Q. Do you want to alter that estimate to five or ten minutes, or can we say – are you pretty sure now that you were there for about an hour? A. Yes, it was an hour. Q. What? A. It was an hour. Q. You are happy with that are you? A. Yes.' So you were given ample opportunity on 14 May 2014, to alter the length of time that you said you were at Mr Popovic's flat, and you stuck with an hour, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. So what I want to suggest to you, that on the timeline that we've developed, that would mean that you were at Mr Popovic's flat until – unit, until sometime around 2 o'clock the following morning? A. Well again what you just read out, about an hour, or an estimate, can be short ten, 15 minutes. It can go over ten, 15 minutes, to my knowledge. … Q. On your estimate, if you didn't arrive at [Popovic]'s unit until sometime after 1, what, 9 minutes past 1, then you wouldn't have left there until around 2 o'clock, would you? A. Again it was an estimate. It was over ten years ago. The statement –" 1. Mr Taylor agreed that on 10 September 2012 he went with Detective Chambers and Detective Sanvitalle on a car trip which followed the route he said he took on the night after he left Popovic's unit. He agreed that it took 13 minutes to reach Blaxland Avenue, Warrawong, where Hristovski lived, and that he estimated the traffic conditions were similar to the traffic conditions on the night of the murder. 2. Mr Taylor agreed that he estimated that he and Koloamatangi were parked outside Hristovski's house for 10 minutes. He also agreed that he then went from Hristovski's house to his house to get the clothing to be worn by Koloamatangi. He was referred to his statement where he said that this trip took 19 minutes. He agreed that he said that he and Koloamatangi were at his house for about 15 minutes and that it took eight minutes to get from his house to the Novotel at Wollongong. 3. It was then put to him that because he went around the block a couple of times before he dropped Koloamatangi off, taking a maximum of 10 minutes, the overall time for the trips (from Popovic's house) was 75 minutes. He agreed that was the estimated time. 4. It was suggested to him that in those circumstances he would have arrived at Splashes after the shooting occurred. He said they were estimated times. He said that the statements to the police were written four years after, and that if he said it was an estimate of an hour it could have been 15 minutes or half an hour. 5. It was put to him that he said he was in the car park for between an hour and an hour and a half before he heard the gunshot, and he said he had his phone turned off so he could not say exactly or precisely, and that it could have been 45 minutes. He agreed, however, that he had always said it was between an hour and an hour and a half. 6. Mr Taylor was referred to a telephone entry at 2:29:41, which was an unsuccessful call made from Popovic to him, with the record indicating that his phone at the time was at Wollongong CBD. It was suggested to him that the Wollongong CBD phone tower did not pick up calls received in the vicinity of the Novotel Hotel. 7. Mr Taylor was asked some questions about a man named Dave Sciberras. He said he was a brother of a friend he "used to knock around with". He was asked for any explanation of why Mr Sciberras was trying to ring him on multiple occasions after midnight or in the early hours of the morning of 8 September. He said it could have been to catch up for a few beers. It was put to him that Mr Sciberras wanted to get in touch with him because he wanted to buy drugs from him, which Mr Taylor disagreed with. 8. Mr Taylor was then asked about his evidence concerning the colour of the gun. It was put to him that in all of his statements he described the gun as a gun that had a black handle and a silver barrel. He agreed. He also agreed that he described it in that way in his evidence before the court at the first trial. 9. He was asked whether he changed his evidence because someone suggested that the gun that was seen in the hands of the shooter was black. He responded, "Before, when the Crown asked me what colour was the gun, I did say it was black and realised later in my statement it was silver". He said it was at night time and an honest mistake. He agreed that when he gave a statement to police, there was no prompting by anybody as to the colour, but that he volunteered that the gun was silver. He said "I just made the statement before that it was black to the Crown. I just rectified that situation with you". 10. Mr Taylor was then referred to the following evidence given by him in relation to the gun in the first trial: " 'Q. Did you see any identifying marks or anything like that? A. Yes. Q. What was that? A. There was an Astra symbol on the handle. Q. When you say symbol, was the word "Astra" written or something else? A. No, sorry, not a symbol. There was a stamp; the "Astra" word written on it. Q. What colour was it? A. Silver, to my memory with a black handle.' So as at April, 2014, your memory was that it was silver with a black handle, the same as in your statement, is that right? A. That's correct. Q. So the first time you had ever told a court that it was black was in your evidence here? A. Yes, I must have got it mixed up. Q. Which part was mixed up? A. The colour of the gun. Q. I am suggesting to you that your memory would have been better in 2012, as to what colour the gun as, as it is in 2017? A. I agree. Q. So, it was silver? A. Well, when we come to now and talking about it, I can't tell you what colour the gun was, to be a hundred per cent certain. Q. So, why did you tell the Crown in your evidence-in-chief before this court that the gun was black? A. I'm sure that was the colour in the heat of the moment. I didn't read the statement correctly before court and I made an accident – I messed up." 1. Mr Taylor agreed that his evidence was that when they got to Hristovski's house he contacted Popovic, so that Popovic could contact Hristovski and tell him to bring out whatever he was going to give them. It was then put to him in the context of the 1:08 am call from Popovic to Hristovski that this could not have been that call, because there was no corresponding call from Koloamatangi or him to Popovic, asking Popovic to ring Hristovski. Mr Taylor referred to a phone call directly after the 1:08 am call between Popovic and Koloamatangi. It was put to him that the phone call had to be the other way around, with either he or Koloamatangi first asking Popovic to ring Hristovski. He said it was not necessarily so, and that the travel time between Popovic's unit and Hristovski's house in Warrawong could be 10 minutes. 2. Mr Taylor agreed that when he drove Koloamatangi back from Sydney to Wollongong, Koloamatangi was not carrying a weapon nor did he have a disguise. He also agreed that as far as he understood, Koloamatangi had never been to Splashes Nightclub. It was again suggested to him that at 2:29 am he was not anywhere near Splashes Nightclub: see [142] above. It was put to him that he made up the story about Koloamatangi being involved in the shooting and he denied it. He also denied that he did the shooting. Cross-examination on behalf of Popovic 1. Mr Taylor was cross-examined on his involvement in the supply of drugs, and on his arrest on 12 January 2012 for the supply of drugs on behalf of a man named Simon de Witt. He agreed that he was charged and pleaded guilty to two charges of supply prohibited drugs. It was put to him that he initially lied to the police at that time when he told them he knew nothing about the drugs He said that if he had told them that, it would have been a lie, but he also said that he could not remember the conversations he had had with the police. He agreed that he received a discount on sentence because of the assistance he provided to the police in connection with the supply of the drugs. 2. Mr Taylor agreed that he read each induced statement he made in relation to the murder of the deceased carefully and that they were true and correct. He agreed that but for the indemnity from prosecution he would not have given evidence. 3. Mr Taylor agreed that as of September 2007 he had met the deceased maybe once or twice. He agreed that he first met him some weeks before he died, and that he was introduced to him by Popovic. 4. Mr Taylor was asked about the meeting at the car park close to Woolworths: see [116] above. He agreed that he saw Bubanja at that meeting. He was then referred to his evidence where he had said that he was not 100 per cent sure that he actually did meet Bubanja before the murder. However Mr Taylor said that he was sure the meeting at the car park happened before the murder and that he met Bubanja. 5. It was put to him that what he was endeavouring to do was to remember what was in his statement and keep it as close to what was in it as he could, and he agreed. It was also put to him that he was not independently trying to recall the events, and he said that it had been over ten years from the incident and that he had spent numerous years trying to forget it. 6. Mr Taylor agreed that at the time of the dinner at Kings Chinese Restaurant on 7 September he was interested in being romantically involved with Ms Wilton. He said that he invited her to dinner, and that she did not come but that he and Popovic were encouraging her to come. He agreed that if she had turned up, he would have been quite keen to spend some time with her, and that Popovic was encouraging this to happen. It was then put to him, and he agreed, that if she had turned up he would have happily spent some time with her and "carry on" after the dinner. He was again asked if Popovic was encouraging the involvement and he said he did not know the specifics of the phone call between Popovic and Ms Wilton that night. It was put to him that he knew that if he had in fact "hooked up" with her that night he would not have been available to drive Koloamatangi to Sydney, and he said that was correct. 7. Mr Taylor was asked further questions concerning the length of time that he and Koloamatangi stayed in Popovic's unit. He agreed that, as he had said in his statement to police, he stayed at Popovic's unit for about an hour. He then gave the following answers: "Q. So your position, at the time you made your statements to police, was that you were there for about an hour? A. That's correct. Q. And you said that that was your estimate, even after giving consideration to the actual events what you could recall about what happened at [Popovic]'s unit that night, or the early hours of that morning; right? A. Correct. Q. And you were given – and you were asked questions about that yesterday? A. Yes. Q. And that remains your position, you think you were there for about an hour; that's right? A. Yes." 1. Mr Taylor was referred to his evidence that it was whilst he was at Popovic's house that he was told that the deceased was at the North Wollongong Hotel. It was suggested to him that when he first spoke to the police, he told them that when he and Koloamatangi returned to Wollongong he drove around for a short period of time, and that he did not tell them about having gone to Popovic's unit. He said he could not recall that conversation. He agreed he had been to the North Wollongong Hotel on many occasions, and at times even with Popovic. He was asked whether he was aware that it closed at midnight, and he responded that he was vaguely aware, but not a hundred per cent sure. It was put to him that if, by a quarter to one in the morning, someone said to go to the North Wollongong Hotel, you would be thinking that it was not open. He said he could not remember the time it closed. However, he agreed that it was possible it closed at twelve o'clock. 2. It was put to him that in those circumstances there was never a conversation with Popovic where he told him to go to the North Wollongong Hotel. He denied this. However he also agreed that at the time, he probably knew that the North Wollongong Hotel would not have been open at a quarter to one, one o'clock or 1:15 on a Saturday morning. 3. Mr Taylor was then asked a series of questions concerning his knowledge of Hristovski's house: "Q. There was no calls made to - by you, or Mr Koloamatangi outside [Hristovski]'s house, was there? A. Yes there was. Q. In Warrawong? A. Yes. Q. So you drove to [Hristovski]'s house, and you made a phone call outside [Hristovski]'s house; is that right? A. That's correct. Q. You met [Hristovski]once; that's right? A. Yes. Q. You didn't even know where he lived? A. I would have known where he lived to go pick up the gun. Q. You didn't know where he lived, did you? A. Yes I did. Q. You hadn't been there before? A. Yes I would have, yes. Q. You would have, you say? A. To go pick up the gun, yes I would have, to go back there. Q. You met him once? A. Yes. Q. There was no reason, or purpose, or way that you would have known where he lived in the street in Warrawong, was there? A. Yes there was. … Q. You didn't even have his phone number to call him? A. That's correct. Q. Or did you? A. Not that I'm aware of at the moment. Q. In all your statements that you made to the police you never mentioned having gone to Mr Hristovski's on occasion – another occasion, had you? A. No. Q. The fact the only time you ever mentioned it was when you gave evidence before, because you had to explain why you know where to go; isn't that the case? A. I think I had to explain how I knew the address, yes. Q. And the first time you'd ever mentioned that you'd gone to Mr Hristovski's residence was in the middle of giving evidence at the previous trial; that's right isn't it? A. Okay. Q Is that right? That's right isn't it? A. If you've got the details, that would be. Q. You certainly didn't mention, when you gave evidence-in-chief today, about any occasion that you went to Mr Hristovski's, did you? A. (No verbal response). Q. Other than the occasion you say you picked up the gun, you didn't refer to any other occasion when you gave evidence-in-chief, did you? A. I think I might have just a minute ago. Q. No, but when you were asked questions by the prosecutor about the events of the 7th and 8th, and associated times in September, you never said anything then about the occasion you went to Mr Hristovski's other than the time you collected the gun? A. I was never asked." 1. Mr Taylor was asked questions about his relationship with a woman named Amy Ewen. He agreed that around August or September 2007 she was in a relationship with Hristovski, and that in about 2008 he formed a relationship with her. He agreed that she discussed with him guns she had seen at Hristovski's place, and that she may well have said that she had seen a silver gun in Hristovski's possession although he couldn't recall this. 2. Mr Taylor was shown the schedule of telephone calls, and it was put to him that there were no calls from Popovic to him or Koloamatangi at twenty past one in the morning until after two in the morning of 8 September. He responded in the following terms: "A. When I received, I arrived back into Wollongong at 12 o'clock estimated time to be at [Popovic]'s unit for about an hour meaning, that is 1 o'clock, meaning I could have left there at 12 o'clock so that time line would start at 12:30 and if you look there's plenty of phone calls in between that time between them numbers." 1. Mr Taylor was shown the record of a call he received at 1:02:18. He agreed that it put his location at North Beach, which was essentially where the Novotel Hotel was. He was then shown a number of calls between 1:12:04 and 1:22:09 which were diverted to voicemail. He was asked whether that was the time he turned the phone off and he said he could not be sure. He also said he could not be sure at what location he turned the phone off. He was shown further phone records, which he agreed were consistent with him being in the suburb Loftus in South Sydney at about 12:15 am, arriving at Wollongong at 12:45 am and was at Splashes at North Beach by 1:02 am. It was put to him that in those circumstances there was no time to go to Hristovski's house, get to his place and then to Splashes. He said that North Beach was on the way to Warrawong. 2. Mr Taylor was taken to a statement he made on 6 June 2012 to Detective Chambers. In that statement, Mr Taylor said that on 6 June 2012, Detective Chambers told him that he believed Mr Taylor's telephone was turned off between 1:02 am and 5:03 am, and that that period would cover the time he was in Splashes and the period he dropped Koloamatangi home. 3. It was also put to him that in his earlier statement to the police, he told the detectives about the occasion when he took the $15,000 to Koloamatangi in Sydney, but that he told them the money was given to him by Bubanja, not Popovic. He said that he could not recall the conversations he had with the police before the first statement, and that this was not said. Ms Snezana Sekuljica 1. Ms Sekuljica gave evidence that she was married to the deceased for about seven years prior to his death. She said that at the time of his death, the deceased was carrying out renovation work on a shop for a man called Dusan Krstic. She said that the deceased had employed Marco and Daki Bubanja when he had his building company. 2. Ms Sekuljica said that back in 2006, her husband carried out building work and construction of some units with Zoran Bubanja and that they had a falling out over some money that had not been paid to the deceased. 3. Ms Sekuljica said that the deceased had a close friend, Robert Freeborough, and another friend called Ned. She said the deceased would regularly meet with his friends on a Friday afternoon at the North Wollongong Hotel. 4. Ms Sekuljica said that the deceased went to the North Wollongong Hotel on the Friday before his death. She recalled that he rang her in the late afternoon or late evening to collect him from the hotel. She said that she did so, and that she drove him to Mamma's Pizza. She said that the deceased told her that Zoran had turned up with Marco and Daki and some other men and they had had an argument. She said the deceased told her that they were going to Mamma's Pizza to look for Popovic. 5. Ms Sekuljica said that Popovic was not at Mamma's Pizza, but that whilst she was driving the deceased got a phone call from Popovic. She said that he and the deceased were arguing. She recalled the deceased saying, "You're waiting for me at North Wollongong pub" and Popovic saying, "Come to me at Keira and I'll fix you up there. Come and meet you up there". 6. She said the deceased accused Popovic of betraying him. She said he said in Serbian, "You traitor" and "You're like him", referring to a traitor in Serbian history. 7. Ms Sekuljica said that the deceased and Popovic were swearing at each other. She said that the first she knew of any falling out between the deceased and Popovic was this incident at the North Wollongong Hotel. 8. It was suggested to Ms Sekuljica in cross-examination that the conversation in the car involved an argument about Serbian football, and she said she was not too sure, but that she didn't think so. Ms Amy Ewen 1. Ms Ewen gave evidence that in about August 2007 she moved in with Hristovski at Warrawong. She said that she got to know a number of people with whom he was friends, including Bubanja, Popovic and Mr Taylor. 2. She said that the relationship ended in early 2008, and that later in 2008 she formed relationship with Mr Taylor which continued until 2009. 3. Ms Ewen said that she thought Hristovski had two guns while she was living with him. She said they were handguns. She said that one was a revolver type weapon, and that the other was not bulky like the other one was. She recalled that they were both silver, but then stated she remembered the revolver one being silver and that she could not recall what the other one was exactly. 4. Ms Ewen said the night before the deceased was killed she was at the house at Warrawong and remained there all night. She said she was watching a movie with Hristovski. She said that she woke at some stage in the early morning and that Hristovski was not there. She recalled him returning around 9 to 10 am the next morning. 5. In cross-examination, Ms Ewen was asked about evidence she had given in the previous trial. It was put to her that she had agreed that it was possible she actually mentioned the silver gun to Mr Taylor, and she said she could not recall. It was also put to her that in her previous evidence, she agreed she discussed what was in her statement with Mr Taylor. She agreed that the fact the gun was a silver gun was mentioned in that statement. Mr Timothy Berry 1. Mr Berry, a ballistics expert, expressed the view that Astra firearms, Rossi firearms and Hi-Point firearms were all capable of discharging the bullets which killed the deceased. He produced an example of what was said to be described sometimes colloquially as a snub nosed firearm. It was an Astra revolver, with a logo and the word Astra written on it. 2. In cross-examination by counsel for Koloamatangi, Mr Berry said that Astra make a number of different sized firearms, including the snub nosed type and full size revolvers. He agreed that in addition to the black one he produced they also make stainless steel revolvers. Mr Johnny Radz (a pseudonym) 1. Mr Radz gave evidence that he was given an indemnity from prosecution for a number of offences, provided he co-operated in these proceedings. He identified the offences for which he received the indemnity as discharging a firearm at a dwelling house with reckless disregard for safety, discharging a firearm with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, using an unauthorised pistol and knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime ($11,500). Mr Radz said that he knew each of the accused in the trial. 2. He agreed that it would be fair to say he had a criminal record. He said that he was sentenced to imprisonment in 2000, released on parole in 2006, that his parole was revoked in June 2007 and that he was released again on parole in October 2007. He said that he was also in custody from July 2008 to May 2009, and was arrested and imprisoned in relation to offences of 9 and 18 February 2013 for which he later received an indemnity. 3. Mr Radz said that he knew Popovic, having met him in 2000. 4. Mr Radz said that whilst on parole in 2006, he met Bubanja and became friends with him. He said he moved into Bubanja's home and that there were two other men living there, Dario and Sandro. 5. Mr Radz said that he ceased living at Bubanja's home in about the middle of 2006, subsequently living in a unit in Wollongong, before moving back to his parent's place in Sydney. His move was as a consequence of his parole officer placing a condition on his parole not to remain in the Illawarra area. Mr Radz said that towards the end of 2006 he got married and was living in a suburb of Sydney. He said that Popovic visited him in around April 2007. He said Popovic told him that he and Zoran had been speaking, and that they both wanted Mr Radz to believe that he should be the man for the job to kill the deceased for money. He said he responded, "I've got a lot of drama at the moment" and that his wife was pregnant and he didn't want to get involved. He said he was offered $40,000 to do the killing. The Zoran referred to presumably was Zoran Bubanja. 6. Mr Radz said that at the time, he was involved with outlaw motorcycle gangs, and that he was connected with the Nomads. He was asked in what way, and he said he was working for John Ibrahim, doing nightclub security at DCM's in Oxford Street and Dragon Fly in Kings Cross. 7. Mr Radz said that in Easter 2007 the Nomads were involved in a dispute with the Comancheros. He recalled that he said to Popovic, "At the moment I've got dramas with the Comancheros". 8. Mr Radz said that he was in custody from June to October 2007. He said that whilst he was in custody, he heard about the shooting of the deceased. He said that he attended Popovic's wedding not long after he got released from custody in October 2007. 9. Mr Radz said that sometime after the wedding, he saw Popovic in the Wollongong CBD area. He said he went to visit him at his unit block with his wife and child. He said they sat down, and that not long after, he and Popovic went for a walk to a park not far from the house. 10. Mr Radz said that this meeting took place probably in early November, and that no-one else was present when he and Popovic went to the park. He was asked what Popovic said to him and gave the following answer: "He was telling me how, um, if I knew or have heard who did it, and he told me that it was an islander, an islander did it, and I asked him 'who?', and he goes 'It was Doc'." 1. Mr Radz said he knew Koloamatangi. He said he asked Popovic who else was involved, and that Popovic said Mr Taylor was driving. Mr Radz was then asked, "Did he say that he was paid, that is Mr Popovic, was paid?" and he responded, "I'm not sure if he said he was paid but I know he said that, that it was 40,000". 2. Mr Radz said that on the day of the conversation he had a conversation on Popovic's phone with a person called Jason. 3. Mr Radz said in July 2008 he was imprisoned again for what he described as "a domestic case". He said he was in Parklea Correctional Centre, and that while he was there he saw Koloamatangi. He said he recalled that the prison was divided into a number of sections with a fence in between made of metal, but which could be seen through very easily. 4. Mr Radz said that he spoke to Koloamatangi through the fence. He gave this evidence concerning a conversation which took place at the time: "Q. How did that come about – you saw him? A. Saw him, said our hellos, then he asked me if I knew what he had done and I said 'Mate yeah I did hear' and he told me that he was, he's the one that killed him and he was waiting in the car nearby with a balaclava and all that and as soon as he got a phone call he ran up into the nightclub and shot him dead then came back to the car and they drove off. Q. Did he say anything specifically about what he did when he did the shooting? A. Yeah he said he went and I think shot him outside and after the guy got shot he ran inside. Doc then chased him inside the nightclub, shot him in the head and chest then ran out back to where his car was and took off." 1. Mr Radz said that Koloamatangi told him he also shot a security guard. He also said Koloamatangi said he had "not been paid nothing and pretty much he only got given a car out of it which was a shit box and he didn't get paid no money at all and that he was very, very disappointed with that". 2. Mr Radz was referred to the time he was placed in custody in Parklea in 2013. He said that Koloamatangi was in that gaol at the time, having been moved from Lithgow Correctional Centre. He said that this was because Koloamatangi had court, and Parklea is a transit gaol. He said Koloamatangi was in that gaol for about week in October 2013. He said that he bumped into Koloamatangi on the way to reception and spoke to him in the corridor. Mr Radz said he asked Koloamatangi if he had been paid yet and he said he had not. He said he asked him whether he had spoken to Popovic, and that he said he had not, but that he would. He said that was the last time he spoke to Koloamatangi. 3. Mr Radz said later in 2013 he saw Popovic in Parklea Prison. He was asked if he knew a man called Peter Taylor and he said he did. He said when he saw Popovic in Parklea in 2013 he had a conversation with him and Popovic described Mr Taylor as a dog saying that "he just dogged on everyone". 4. Mr Radz was asked about the 2013 charge of discharging a pistol with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. He said that he was forced to shoot someone in the legs by the Brothers 4 Life gang. He said he became involved with the Brothers 4 Life in 2012 after he was involved with the Nomads, because he had known some of the Brothers 4 Life members from childhood. He said that Mr Rghis, the person he shot, was someone he had introduced to Brothers 4 Life. 5. Mr Radz said that Mr Rghis had stolen some drugs from the Brothers 4 Life, and that because Mr Radz had vouched for him, they put it upon him to deal with it. He said if he did not, he would have been shot in return. Cross-examination on behalf of Popovic 1. Mr Radz was asked about the offence for which he went to gaol in 2000. He agreed that the period of imprisonment was for a sentence for shooting two people, one of which was a man by the name of David Higgins. 2. Mr Radz agreed that he was interviewed by the police in relation to the shooting of a man named Amone, and that he said that he was acting in self-defence. It was put to him that this was a lie. He agreed that the shooting involved the discharge of a number of bullets into the streets of Wollongong. He was asked whether he still believed now that he was acting in self-defence, and he said it was irrelevant what he now believed, but then said he continued to believe it. 3. In relation to the shooting of Mr Higgins, he agreed there were two other people that the police believed were involved. He agreed that he told the police that those two people had no knowledge of what he was doing, and that that was a lie. He agreed he had then had a change of heart and decided to tell the truth to the police. He agreed that, in relation to at least one of those people, he decided to tell the truth because they had not at that stage honoured an agreement they had made to pay his legal fees. 4. Mr Radz agreed that when he gave the second interview to the police he did not mention that there was a fourth person involved. He agreed that he lied by not telling the police about this fourth person. 5. He agreed that he also told the police in the second interview that he acted in self-defence when he shot Mr Higgins. It was put to him that this was a lie and he said that it was not, but that he was attacked with a screwdriver. He agreed that there were four people who had gone to Mr Higgins' house, and that Mr Higgins had a screwdriver. It was put to him that Mr Higgins had one leg, and he said that he had two, with one prosthetic leg. He was asked whether he was acting in self-defence each of the three times he shot Mr Higgins, and he said he did not know how to answer that. He said he was a silly kid back then. 6. [Redacted] 7. [Redacted] 8. [Redacted] 9. Mr Radz agreed he had been dishonest in his dealings with his parole officer because it would not have been in his interests to be honest. 10. Mr Radz was referred to the conversation he said he had with Popovic on Good Friday in 2007. It was put to him that the reason he said he did not want to get involved was because of his wife and his baby on the way. He responded that he did not remember telling Popovic he was concerned, but that he told him, "I've got a missus and a kid [redacted] so I just pretty much want to go to work, get paid and hopefully come home without being shot". 11. Mr Radz stated that at the time he was concerned for his wife, notwithstanding he later went to gaol for domestic violence against her. 12. It was put to Mr Radz that he did not reject an offer made to him by Popovic on Good Friday 2007 because an offer was never made, and he denied this. 13. It was put to Mr Radz that throughout his life he had been attracted to gangs and he said that was correct. He agreed he joined the Rebels motorcycle gang, then left them and joined Brothers 4 Life. He agreed he had a history of joining criminal groups. It was put to him that in October 2007 when he had a conversation with Popovic at his unit, the conversation involved discussing with Popovic what group Mr Radz may or may not wish to be associated with. He rejected that. It was put to him there was no conversation about anything to do with the murder at Splashes and he denied that. 14. [Redacted] 15. [Redacted] 16. [Redacted] 17. [Redacted] 18. [Redacted] 19. [Redacted] 20. [Redacted] 21. [Redacted] 22. [Redacted] 23. [Redacted] He agreed that he discussed with Detective Peroni how he could get bail, and that he could be part of an operation and record conversations. He agreed that he was prepared to do anything to get himself out on bail. 24. He agreed that during 2013 he met Detective Peroni on numerous occasions, and that Detective Peroni became what might be described as his handler. 25. He agreed that on 21 May 2013 he made his first induced statement, [redacted]. He agreed that he denied any personal involvement. 26. He also agreed that on 21 May 2013 at a meeting with police he raised the topic of seeking an indemnity. He agreed he said that he could give information about other criminal activities, and that in late May to early June he contacted the NSW Crime Commission. 27. Mr Radz said he went to the Crime Commission offices on 4 July 2013. He agreed that he took it upon himself to go to the Crime Commission because he was not happy with the progress of the police in granting bail. 28. Mr Radz agreed that he told the Crime Commission officers a lie about the charges he was facing. He agreed he told the Crime Commission that Mr Rghis had come at him with a gun, and that he had taken it off him and had shot him in self-defence. He agreed that was a lie. He agreed he told the lie because he thought it would be more likely that they would engage him in a controlled operation. 29. Mr Radz agreed that after September 2013 he knew that Popovic had been charged with the murder of the deceased and was in custody, bail refused. 30. He agreed that he spent time with Popovic in gaol and that they played chess together. He denied he discussed Popovic's case with him. However, he said he knew what Popovic was in gaol for. He said he knew that Peter Taylor had given a statement against Popovic. It was put to him that he read part of Popovic's brief of evidence but said he could not remember it. He agreed he could not say he did not read part of the brief. 31. Mr Radz agreed he read an article in the Illawarra Mercury concerning the murder when he was in custody in 2007. He said that in December 2013 he started to make a formal police statement, but that he held back on signing the statement until he had an indemnity. Cross-examination on behalf of Koloamatangi 1. In cross-examination by counsel for Koloamatangi, Mr Radz agreed that he told the Crime Commission that admissions were made to him by a man named Darko Jancevski, relating to the shooting or killing of a man named Goran Nikolovski. He agreed that he also told the Crime Commission that a Mr Wilson had made a confession to him in gaol about having killed or tried to kill Darko Jancevski. 2. It was put to him that he told the officers of the Crime Commission, Mr Durant and Mr Tuckerman, that Popovic had admitted to him that he was the one who had actually pulled the trigger and killed the deceased. Mr Radz said he did not remember that. He agreed that if he had said these words they would not have been true. 3. It was also suggested to Mr Radz that he told Mr Tuckerman and Mr Durant on another occasion that Bubanja was the one who fired the gun and that Popovic was the organiser. He responded that he could not remember in exact detail. He also said that he could not remember telling the Crime Commission that Popovic told him Koloamatangi was meant to do the shooting, but chickened out at the last minute. 4. Mr Radz was cross-examined about his knowledge of Koloamatangi and the circumstances in which he allegedly made admissions to Mr Radz. He was first asked the following questions: "Q. And after you were released from prison in 2006 you, for a time at least, returned to the Wollongong area? A. Yes. Q. Mr Koloamatangi is not a person from Wollongong, is he? A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Your evidence is that in 2008 you were in custody on another matter, is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you had this conversation with him in which, according to you, he made admissions to you about his involvement in the Splashes murder? A. Yes, he did. Q. In prison through a fence, is that right? A. That's correct. Q. So you are in Parklea Gaol in an area – I think you were in 1A/1C? A. Yes. Q. And he is in 1B and 1D? A. Yes. Q. So you are in different parts of the prison that were adjoining to each other? A. Separated just by that one fence, yes. … Q. A high fence made of quite substantial wire? A. Yes. … Q. You say that, having seen Mr Koloamatangi across the yard, he comes up to the fence and makes an admission to you about his involvement in a murder? A. That's correct. Q. A murder that happened a year before or something like a year before? A. Yes. Q. He told you, according to you, that he hadn't been paid? A. That's correct. Q. That nobody had paid him for the murder? A. He hasn't been paid nothing, that's what he told me." 1. It was put to Mr Radz that he said nothing about this alleged admission to the Crime Commission in July 2013. He said he could not remember. It was put to him that the only thing he said about his knowledge was that Popovic had made admissions that he was the shooter. Mr Radz again said he could not remember. 2. He was then asked about the circumstances in which Koloamatangi was said to have made an admission to him in 2013: "Q. In any event, that's the only conversation you had with him, you say, in 2008? A. In 2008 that's the only conversation I had with him. Q. Nothing happens, you get released from prison, go your merry way and no contact with him at all? A. No. Q. Don't see him in Wollongong? A. No. Q. Don't see him anywhere? A. No, I just know him from prison. Q. Five years go by and you are back in prison? A. That's correct. Q. And in 2013 you are like ships passing in the night, is that right? A. That's right. Q. You are being taken across from one part of the prison across to have an audiovisual link appearance in court? A. That's right. Q. And he is being taken on his way to transport back to Lithgow Correctional Centre where he was being remanded? A. That is what I believe to have happened, yes. … Q. And in that area you claim five years later, having had no contact at all, you ask him, 'Have you been paid?' And he said, 'No'?" 1. Mr Radz agreed that at that time he was in the same gaol as Popovic. He said he could not remember if he asked Popovic whether he had paid Koloamatangi for the offence. He agreed that Popovic had told him in the park at Wollongong that Koloamatangi was the shooter. He agreed that whilst he was at Parklea playing chess with Popovic he did not say anything like, "Have you paid Doc yet?". It was suggested to him that was because none of those conversations took place. Detective Sergeant Peroni 1. Detective Sergeant Peroni said he spoke to Mr Radz at Parklea Correctional Centre on 16 April 2013. He said he also met him a number of times in May and June 2013, and that Mr Radz asked for assistance with his bail application. He ultimately learned that Mr Radz had approached the Crime Commission. Mr Neil Tuckerman 1. Mr Tuckerman was the Assistant Director of the NSW Crime Commission. He said he spoke to Mr Radz on 4 July 2013. Referring to his notes, he said that at that meeting, Mr Radz told him that in 2007 Popovic had told him that Koloamatangi had committed the murder. His notes also recorded that Mr Radz referred to Mr Taylor and said, "Rolled and said Doc did it. Will crumble". He said his understanding of this note was that this was what Mr Radz been told by Popovic. He then referred to his notes which said, "2007 Doc upset. Popovic did not pay", and then "Pop organised Zoran Bubanja pay for it". Ms Gillian Gaskin 1. Ms Gaskin said she was an analyst employed by the NSW Police Force. She prepared the schedule of telephone calls upon which Mr Taylor was cross-examined (Exhibit O). She noted that Koloamatangi's phone was a Vodafone service, Popovic's was an Optus service and the deceased's was a Vodafone service. She also noted that Bubanja used a Vodafone service. Detective Sergeant Ritchie 1. Detective Sergeant Ritchie gave evidence of a meeting with Mr Taylor on 1 June 2012. He confirmed that his notes indicated that Mr Taylor told him that he went with Koloamatangi to Hristovski's premises in Warrawong after the meal at Kings Chinese restaurant, and that he did so before they drove to Sydney to drop off Koloamatangi's girlfriend. Detective Ritchie also confirmed that his notes reflected that Mr Taylor had said that when he returned from Sydney with Koloamatangi they drove around the Wollongong area. He agreed that Mr Taylor did not tell him that he and Koloamatangi went to Popovic's house. 2. Detective Ritchie confirmed that his notes indicated that Mr Taylor told him that after he and Koloamatangi returned from Sydney and drove around for a short period of time, they then went and parked in the North Wollongong beach car park. He also agreed his notes referred to Mr Taylor receiving $15,000 approximately two days after the murder, and taking it to Koloamatangi. Detective Ritchie indicated that his notes also referred to the fact that Mr Taylor said he received the money from Bubanja. Mr Raymond Chang 1. Mr Chang was a senior technical specialist employed by Optus, having been employed there since 1998. 2. Mr Chang said that he held a Bachelor of Electrical Engineering from the University of New South Wales, and headed a team that looked after mobile telephone coverage. He said that included the placement of towers, the placement of antennae on the towers, which direction they face and the area of coverage that arises from each of those antennae. 3. Mr Chang said that in 2007, Optus and Vodafone used separate antennae to receive mobile calls, which were attached to separate structures. He stated that the antennae were connected to a base station which acts as a receiver and transmitter and provides power to the antennae. 4. Mr Chang agreed that there were variations in the coverage provided by each of the antennae. He said that depended on the power available to the antennae from the base station, the position or location of the tower itself, the height from the ground of the antennae, the topography of the area, the direction the antennae is facing, the existence of other base stations and sometimes the amount of mobile telephone traffic being received by a particular base station. 5. Mr Chang agreed that a mobile telephone call will, in the majority of cases, go to the base station of the network to which it is connected nearest to it that has the strongest signal. Similarly, a mobile telephone call will be received by the base station to which the recipient's phone is connected which has the strongest signal. He said, however, that the mobile phone will not be able to know which base station is closest, so it scans the base stations around it, and will try to use the service on whatever base station has presented to be the strongest that the mobile phone can see. He said it is not necessarily the closest but generally most of the time it is. 6. Mr Chang said that Optus had software which enables it to work out an area of coverage for each station. He agreed there were some variations that arise in real life by comparison with the predicted area of coverage, and gave the following answer: "A. Of course. The software itself calculates the mobile – the base station coverage by the information we put in it. Such as configurations of the networks, the height of the antenna, the location of the antenna and also the terrain data and with this information based on a mathematical model to work out what likelihood the base station in any particular spot, how strong it can present. Something that we can't predict is say something nearby base station have outages, say for example, that will be not included in the model itself." 1. He also said that extreme weather would change mobile phone coverage and that there would be a stronger signal if the telephone is outside as opposed to inside a building. 2. Mr Chang said that Optus had retained records relating to the towers and antennae, which could look back to September 2007. He said he could create information relating to a particular site at that particular time. Maps were tendered through him showing cell coverage for various cell sites or antennae in the Wollongong area, with the exception of Rockdale and Loftus (Exhibit W). Another document was tendered which showed the addresses for each of the cell sites (Exhibit X). 3. Mr Chang was asked about congestion of a particular cell site at times of heavy traffic. He said that because each of the base stations would only have certain resources to serve the customer, the base station in those circumstances will ask the mobile to try the second best serving base station around it. He said after a couple of minutes if the mobile is not able to get the service the call will fail. 4. A map was tendered (Exhibit AA) showing the Optus network from Wollongong to Port Kembla. 5. In cross-examination on behalf of Koloamatangi, Mr Chang agreed that generally between 1:30 am and 3 am there would not be heavy traffic. He said that was the case even on New Year's Eve. He agreed that in those circumstances it was unlikely for calls to be diverted to other cell towers. He was asked if the call would go to the nearest cell tower to the person who was making the call, and he said not the nearest but the tower which had the strongest signal. 6. He was then asked these questions by reference to a photograph of the Novotel Hotel and the area around it: "Q. I want you to accept that the large building towards the middle, slightly to the left is, in fact, the Novotel Hotel in Wollongong? A. Okay. Q. That building there indicated is the Novotel Hotel in Wollongong? A. Okay. Q. And this north is to your right, so this is the coast, the sea and north is to the far right of the photograph? A. Yep. Q. If a person was – you see a carpark on the right-hand side of the photograph? A. Yes, along there, parking area. Q. It's here? A. Yeah, this area. Q. So that's further north of the Novotel Hotel? A. Yep, okay. Q. If a person who was an Optus, had an Optus phone was in that carpark? A. Yep. Q. And received a phone call, that phone call would go through North Beach 1, wouldn't it? A. If the directions and the building is what you mentioned about, yes; highly likely they would be served by North Beach 1. Q. Particularly if it was around 2:30 in the morning when there is no high traffic around? A. Likely to be. yeah." 1. Mr Chang was then asked the following questions concerning the diagram of the Optus network at 8 September 2007 (Exhibit AA). He gave the following answers: "Q. If somebody was using an Optus phone and ringing from Warrawong, close to Port Kembla to a phone situation in Wollongong, it could go through a number of possible cell towers; is that correct? A. What do you mean by 'number'? Q. In terms of somebody in Warrawong making a phone call, the originating cell tower that is the cell tower that the call would come from? A. Yep. Q. Would be either Port Kembla? A. Highly likely they would be, start from Port Kembla base stations. Q. Or it could be Cringila? A. There is still a possibility there. Q. But the most likely, Port Kembla? A. Most likely Port Kembla. Q. Between Port Kembla and Wollongong, there is Port Kembla cell station Cringila and Mt Saint Thomas? A. Yes, that's correct. Q. But the most likely cell tower that would pick up a phone call from Warrawong would be the Port Kembla? A. That's correct." Mr Jowed Khatiz 1. Mr Khatiz was the manager of network quality and customer experience for Vodafone. He said he had a Bachelor of Engineering in Information Systems from the University of Sydney, had been working for Vodafone since 2001 and had detailed knowledge of Vodafone systems. 2. He said that the Vodafone system in 2007 was a 2G GSM network. He said it had changed considerably since then and that there had also been changes in respect of cell towers used by Vodafone. He said it was not possible with Vodafone's records to go back to 2007. 3. Mr Khatiz agreed that some cell coverage maps were prepared at the request of police for the network as it existed in 2012. He agreed that in each map the cell coverage was drawn in red. He agreed that the cell coverage was the coverage area predicted by computer generation. These maps were tendered and marked Exhibit AB. 4. Mr Khatiz agreed the prediction of coverage was based on the coverage expected by that server as the dominant server in the area. He said that the area marked in red on the maps showed the area expected to be covered by a particular tower. 5. Mr Khatiz gave the following evidence concerning the operation of the tower: "Q. We have heard some reference to congesting altering the position in relation to the server that might provide service. What is the effect of that? A. Generally, if the tower with the strongest signal, if that is congested, then the phone will look to the second best signal which is generally the close vicinity of the location, and it will then attempt to set up a call on that one. Again, if a second one is congested for whatever reason, we try the third one. That will happen for up to eight seconds. After eight seconds, the call will appear as call failed on the phone. Q. Are there areas in the red marked area where there might be competition from another tower, for example, at the fringes of where towers are situated or – sorry, where the coverage at the fringes of the coverage areas? A. Yeah. In the fringes of coverage areas, there would be competing signals from the other neighbouring towers. Correct. Q. Is it or was it possible that, for example, in the one place that, in one location, there could be two towers that have provided strong signals? A. Yes, that is possible. Only on the cell boundary, it is possible for two towers to be competing with each other. Correct." 1. By reference to the cell site described as Wollongong CBD, he described the scattered red areas on the map in the following terms: "A. That's a combination of those things that I mentioned earlier on. The topography, the actual terrain and the height. So, this is what the prediction is showing. So, there is some spillage going up the coast, but that again depends on the line of sight. So, this particular tower is located on the rooftop of the Wollongong Hospital, and the way that it's propagating and the openness, the signal, the coverage is, yeah, going up north for quite, quite many kilometres." 1. Mr Khatiz agreed that between 2007 and 2012 there had been an increase in the number of towers in the area. He said that in 2007 the towers would have covered a greater area. 2. Mr Khatiz said he did not expect that there would be congestion between midnight and 4: am. 3. Two maps were also tendered showing the Vodafone network as at August 2007 (Exhibit AD). 4. In cross-examination, Mr Khatiz agreed that what was produced was the coverage maps for only the list of towers that were requested. He agreed there was no map showing the cell coverage on the Warrawong tower in August 2007. He was asked this question by reference to a map which was Exhibit Y: "Q. I want to ask you this, if someone was located at dot 2 [residence of Hristovski] using a Vodafone phone, if they were making a phone call to Wollongong CBD, would you agree that that phone, that phone call, emanating from that Vodafone telephone, at 2, would go either through the Warrawong cell tower or the Berkeley cell tower? A. Unfortunately, I don't have the coverage maps. I can't see what coverage to make that comment. Q. But it would go through one or the other, wouldn't it? A. So, just looking, there's about three towers. There's Berkeley, on the left hand side; you got Warrawong down the south; then we have got Crown Street Mall in Wollongong CBD. Sorry, there's four close towers in the vicinity of that. Also, I guess, it depends on the, if the person at point number 2 is indoors or outside. So, the predictions that we have supplied there are the outdoor predictions. There's quite a few variables on what I have, in all the coverage maps. I probably can't make a comment. … Q. [Her Honour] Sorry, did the witness finish? Can't make? A. I can't make a prediction to which tower it will go to so, because I don't have all the information in front of me. I don't have. If I had all four coverage maps in front of me, I could make a proper assessment of where I would expect the call to go to. … Q. It would go to the closest dominant tower, is that correct? A. It would go to the closest dominant tower. Correct." 1. Mr Khatiz agreed that the coverage from the Crown Street Mall site did not extend to Warrawong. 2. He was then asked further questions concerning calls made from Hristovski's residence and gave these answers: "Q. If a phone call was made from dot point two to Wollongong CBD, it would most likely at the very least be picked up by the Berkeley tower, rather than going to Wollongong CBD? A. It's a little difficult for me to work out because I don't have point number 2 marked on the coverage map. The Exhibit AB, I find it a little bit difficult to put in position of exactly where is point number 2 against the AB documents. Q. You would agree that, at the very least, between Wollongong CBD and that area of blue, that is the inland blue which is water, there is another station, at least one station being Berkeley which is dominantly within that area between the blue and Wollongong CBD? A. Yes, that's correct. I mean the Berkeley tower is providing coverage to east, north, yep, it is, yeah. Q. So if we look where the Berkeley tower is on exhibit Y? A. Yes. Q. If somebody made a phone call from the blue dot two, it would at the very least be picked up by the Berkeley tower before it got to Wollongong? A. Yeah, out of coverage, I would say most likely be through the Berkeley situation, yeah." Mr Matthew Durant 1. The evidence given by Mr Durant at the previous trial was read without objection. Mr Durant described himself as an intelligence analyst employed by the New South Wales Crime Commission. He said he had a meeting with Mr Radz and Mr Tuckerman of the Commission on 4 July 2013. He was shown a document he prepared as a result of the meeting, concerning the murder of the deceased. He said that the notes from which they had been prepared were shredded. 2. In cross-examination, Mr Durant agreed that Mr Radz's focus was to get bail and it was in that context he raised the issue of Splashes. Mr Durant agreed that Mr Radz started by saying that Popovic and Koloamatangi had been charged in the murder of the deceased.. He agreed that Mr Radz then said to him that while in gaol Popovic admitted that he was the one who actually pulled the trigger and killed the deceased. He said that Mr Radz said to him that Popovic pulled the trigger, and that Koloamatangi was meant to do it but he chickened out so Popovic stepped up. 3. He said that Mr Radz also told him that Mr Taylor was the driver of the getaway car. Mr Durant then said that he asked Mr Radz if he thought Popovic did it, and that Mr Radz replied "I don't know whether [Popovic] actually pulled the trigger or not. It's very strange that he would admit doing it as a throw away". 4. Mr Durant ultimately agreed with senior counsel for Koloamatangi that Mr Radz had not said that Koloamatangi had made admissions to him that he had committed the murder. Detective Sergeant Chambers 1. Detective Sergeant Chambers gave evidence that on 10 September 2012, he and Detective Sanvitalle drove with Mr Taylor to a number of locations for the purpose of ascertaining the time it took to travel in a motor vehicle between certain places. He said that the trip from Popovic's address to Hristovski's home in Warrawong took 13 minutes, and that Mr Taylor confirmed with him that the traffic conditions were similar to the conditions on the morning of 8 September 2007. 2. Detective Sergeant Chambers said that Mr Taylor told him he estimated he was parked outside Hristovski's house for a maximum of 10 minutes. He said he then drove with Mr Taylor from Hristovski's house to Mr Taylor's home which took 19 minutes. He said Mr Taylor again indicated that the conditions were the same. He said Mr Taylor informed him that he spent about 15 minutes at his house on the morning of 8 September. 3. Detective Sergeant Chambers then said that he drove with Mr Taylor and Detective Sanvitalle to the location of Splashes Nightclub, which took eight minutes. Mr Taylor informed him that on 8 September, on arriving in the vicinity of the Novotel Hotel, he drove one or two laps around the block which he estimated took a maximum of 10 minutes. The grounds of appeal 1. Koloamatangi ultimately relied on the following grounds of appeal: "Ground 1 It would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the conviction of the appellant to stand since the witness 'Johnny Radz' had recently been condemned as a liar by this court and reliance of his evidence to sustain the conviction would be a public scandal and contrary to public policy. Ground 2 (a) It would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the conviction of the appellant to stand since the witness 'Peter Taylor' had recently been condemned as a liar by this court and reliance on his evidence to sustain the conviction would be a public scandal and contrary to public policy; and (b) The trial miscarried because of the admission of Peter Taylor's evidence concerning Hristovski's supply of the murder weapon. Ground 3 That the verdict of the jury is unreasonable, and cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence. Ground 4 The [a]ppellant feels a justifiable sense of grievance in that the sentence imposed upon him was so substantially greater than that imposed upon the co-offender, Zlatan Popovic." 1. Popovic relied on the following grounds: "1. (a) The learned trial judge erred in failing to exclude the evidence of the witness referred to in the trial by the pseudonym of 'Johnny Radz', whereby there was a substantial miscarriage of justice; and (b) In any event it would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the conviction of the appellant to stand since the witness 'Johnny Radz' had recently been condemned as a liar by this court and reliance on his evidence to sustain the conviction would be a public scandal and contrary to public policy. 2. (a) The learned trial judge erred in law in failing to exclude the evidence of the witness referred to in the trial by the pseudonym of 'Peter Taylor', whereby there was a substantial miscarriage of justice; and (b) In any event it would be a miscarriage of justice to permit the conviction of the appellant to stand since the witness 'Peter Taylor' had recently been condemned as a liar by this court and reliance on his evidence to sustain the conviction would be a public scandal and contrary to public policy. 3. The learned trial judge erred on 4 August 2017 in admitting evidence of events at the North Wollongong Hotel on 31 August 2007 and immediately following. 4. The learned trial judge erred on 4 August 2017 in admitting evidence of events involving Dalibor (Daki) Bubanja at the Splashes Nightclub. 5. The verdict of the jury is unreasonable, and cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence." 1. It is apparent that grounds 1 and 2 of each applicant's grounds of appeal overlap, although grounds 1 and 2 of Popovic's grounds, at least on their face, raise some wider issues than those raised by Koloamatangi. Nevertheless, both in writing and orally senior counsel for Popovic substantially adopted the submissions made by senior counsel for Koloamatangi on these grounds. In these circumstances it is convenient to deal with these grounds together. The previous judgment 1. Because grounds 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal rely in large part on the conclusion of this Court in the previous judgment, it is necessary to say something about the conclusions reached by that Court and their Honour's reasoning. 2. The principal judgment was delivered by Adamson J. Of relevance is her Honour's reasoning and conclusion in finding that the guilty verdicts against Hristovski and Bubanja were unreasonable. 3. Adamson J set out the evidence given by Mr Taylor at the first trial which, except on the question of timing, was broadly similar to that given in the present case. Her Honour pointed out (at [53]) that Mr Taylor accepted in cross-examination that the whole of his evidence was predicated on him being back in Wollongong by 10.30pm or 11.00pm. She noted his evidence at the trial was that he stayed at Popovic's unit for an hour before leaving for Hristovski's home. She noted the evidence given by Mr Taylor of what took place at Popovic's unit, which was similar to that given by him in the present trial. She noted that Mr Taylor estimated it took 15 minutes to get from Popovic's unit to Hristovski's place at Warrawong, 20 minutes to get back to his home, that he was at his home for about 20 minutes and then proceeded to Splashes, and waited in his car for an hour and a half to two hours whilst Koloamatangi remained outside. Her Honour referred to the telephone records, noting that it was common ground that it did not reveal a single call made by a relevant party in the case which came through the Berkeley tower which covered Warrawong. 4. Her Honour noted the following matters relied upon by senior counsel for Hristovski in contending that the evidence of Mr Taylor against her client should not be accepted. First, Mr Taylor's evidence that Hristovski was not involved in the Kings Chinese restaurant dinner on the evening of 7 September was inconsistent with what he had previously told the police (at [287]). Second, Mr Taylor's account of his movements did not reconcile with the telephone records (at [288]-[292]). Third, Mr Taylor's claim at the trial that he had telephoned Popovic at 00:49 from a cul-de-sac outside Hristovski's house was inconsistent with the telephone records which showed no such call was made, and which was at a time when he was still north of Wollongong (at [293]-[295]). Fourth, the telephone records reveal that Hristovski was not at home at the time (at [295]-[296]). Fifth, it was only at the conclusion of his evidence in chief that he stated that he had been at Hristovski's house before the early morning of 8 September (at [297]). Sixth, his description of the gun implicated Hristovski but was inconsistent with the other eyewitness reports [at [299]-[300]). In that context, her Honour reached the following conclusions: "[301] The cumulative effect of the evidence and the matters raised by [senior counsel for Hristovski] causes me to have a doubt, which I consider to be reasonable, about Mr Hristovski's involvement in the shooting. After having considered the whole of the evidence against Mr Hristovski, I am satisfied that his evidence about obtaining the gun from Mr Hristovski when Mr Hristovski was at home at Warrawong on the night of 7-8 September 2007 was incorrect. Indeed I have considerable doubt whether Mr Hristovski provided a gun to Mr Taylor at all and whether the gun in Mr Hristovski's possession was used in the shooting of the deceased. I do not consider that the other evidence of his involvement, which is largely comprised of telephone records, to be sufficient to rebut a hypothesis consistent with innocence: that he was out on a Friday night with his friends after watching a movie at home in bed with his girlfriend. [302] I am concerned that Mr Taylor's evidence in that regard was motivated by a desire to implicate Mr Hristovski in the killing and did not accord with what actually happened." 1. Her Honour dealt with Mr Radz in considering Bubanja's claim that the verdict was unreasonable. She made the following remarks: "[319] Mr Radz gave evidence of two admissions said to have been made by Mr Bubanja to Mr Radz. There was no prior mention of these admissions, which were not recorded in any of the statements taken by police who had interviewed Mr Radz. [320] The first admission was said to have been made some time prior to the shooting in which Mr Bubanja is said to have told Mr Radz that he could not wait until the deceased got out (of gaol) so that he could put a bullet in his head. Mr Radz's evidence was that Mr Bubanja made the statement (that he could not wait until the deceased got out so that he could put a bullet in his head) 'every day' and to '100 other people', although he was unable to name a single person who had heard the statement. In my view, the reliability of this first admission was substantially impugned by the obvious exaggeration in Mr Radz's evidence relating to it as well as Mr Radz's motive in fabricating such an admission. [321] The second admission was said to have been made by Mr Bubanja to Mr Radz in 2009 or 2010 between Mr Radz's release from gaol in April 2009 and his departure overseas in 2010. According to Mr Radz he went out to dinner at Latani's restaurant in Wollongong CBD and Mr Bubanja was there. Mr Bubanja said to him: 'Did you hear what I did, I am the one that followed Dragan [the deceased] to Splashes and made the phone call for Doc to strike.' [322] There are two principal difficulties with this admission. First, Mr Bubanja did not follow the deceased to Splashes, since Mr Bubanja arrived at 23.27.39 on 7 September 2007 and the deceased did not arrive until 00.30.31 on 8 September 2007. Secondly, Mr Bubanja did not make a call between the time the deceased arrived at Splashes and the time he was shot. It is, in my view, not safe to put any weight on Mr Radz's evidence of these two admissions which can, accordingly be disregarded for the purposes of performing the task set out in M v The Queen. … [324] There are different considerations that apply to an assessment of the weight to be given to the jury's verdict in respect of Mr Bubanja than apply to the verdict in respect of Mr Hristovski because of the differences between the evidence against them. Nonetheless the lack of balance in the summing up and the directions concerning Mr Taylor tended to compromise the verdicts in respect of all applicants. Mr Taylor's credibility was important with respect to the conversation in the Woolworth's car park as well as the congratulatory conversation after the shooting. Mr Radz's credibility was substantially impugned for the reasons given elsewhere." 1. R A Hulme J, who agreed with Adamson J, made the following comments: "[10] Mr Taylor's credibility and reliability were very important matters in the assessment of the case against Mr Hristovski. I am not so troubled about matters of time, the sequence of events and the colour of the gun. In large part, such matters were naturally open to imprecision: timing and sequence of events because of the long period that had elapsed between the events in question and when Mr Taylor first reduced his version to written form (5 years) and when he gave evidence (7 years); and the colour of the gun because of the less than ideal circumstances (poor lighting and the brevity and trauma of the event) in which the witnesses at the nightclub had in which to see and recall the appearance of the weapon. These matters did not inspire confidence in Mr Taylor but I would place less weight on them than the applicants' counsel did in submissions in this Court, and their trial counsel did in address to the jury, as being destructive of his credibility and reliability. [11] The one thing that particularly gives rise to a reasonable doubt about the guilt of Mr Hristovski in my mind is the seeming impossibility of Mr Taylor's account of the collection of the gun from Mr Hristovski at Warrawong. (See the analysis by Adamson J under the headings 'The sequence of events on the evening of 7 and 8 September 2007' and 'The fact and timing of the visit to Mr Hristovski's on 7-8 September 2007'.) It was a critical element in the case against Mr Hristovski but the evidence is such that there must be a grave doubt that it occurred at all. And the simple fact is, if there is a doubt about that, there is a doubt about Mr Hristovski's guilt. This assessment may be made without recourse to the jury's advantage, even if that was appropriate. [12] I cannot add anything useful to the review of the case against Mr Bubanja provided in the judgment of Adamson J. It was a case that was significantly dependent upon acceptance of particular aspects of the evidence of two indemnified witnesses who will be referred to in these reasons as Messrs Taylor and Radz. Mr Taylor's evidence was problematic in a number of respects and the example I have referred to in relation to the collection of the gun is damaging in relation to his credibility generally. Mr Radz's evidence was, on my assessment, of even more dubious credibility. The remainder of the case against Mr Bubanja was not enough to restore confidence in those men's evidence." The appeal on grounds 1 and 2 The submissions 1. In written submissions on behalf of Koloamatangi in support of ground 1, it was submitted that Mr Radz's evidence in the case against Bubanja was rejected on the ground that he had told lies. It was submitted that it was an affront to the administration of justice to allow the conviction of Koloamatangi to stand, in circumstances where an important part of the prosecution case was to have Mr Radz give evidence broadly similar to that given in the case against Bubanja. 2. It was submitted that the case raises serious issues about public policy concerning the use of informers. It was submitted there are powerful policy considerations which should have compelled the rejection of Mr Radz's evidence, including the fact that courts are regarded as the institutional expression of the rule of law, the administration of justice should be consistent, the administration of justice should not be seen as hypocritical and decisions should be viewed by the public as seriously meaningful. It was submitted that the situation has similar concerns to those considered by the High Court in AB v CD, EF v CD [2018] HCA 58; (2018) 93 ALJR 59. 3. The same submissions were made in relation to Mr Taylor. 4. At the hearing, senior counsel for Koloamatangi submitted that the previous judgment established practically, factually and legally that Hristovski was not a party to the murder and did not supply the murder weapon to Mr Taylor and Koloamatangi. It was submitted in support of ground 2(b) that the evidence of Mr Taylor to the contrary effect controverted the acquittal. He also submitted that the use of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz brought the administration of justice into disrepute. He accepted there was no impropriety in the presentment of the indictment, but submitted that the use of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz was inappropriate. 5. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi referred to the passages of R A Hulme J and Adamson J in the previous judgment, which I have set out above. He submitted that the Crown, having run the first trial on a particular basis, made an attempt to overcome the finding in the previous judgment by getting extra evidence and recasting the case, which he submitted directly called into question the acquittals which were entered for specific reasons. 6. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi submitted that what occurred was an abuse of process because it brought the administration of justice into disrepute. 7. The written submissions filed on behalf of Popovic adopted those filed on behalf of Koloamatangi. At the hearing senior counsel for Popovic also adopted the submissions of senior counsel for Koloamatangi. 8. The Crown in its written submissions contended that no application was made to the trial judge to exclude the evidence of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz. It was submitted that in those circumstances, rule 4 of the Criminal Appeal Rules may apply. However, if any of grounds 1 and 2 are successful, it would inevitably follow that there was a miscarriage of justice such that leave to raise the ground would be granted. 9. The Crown noted that the applicant contended that the bringing of proceedings in reliance on the evidence of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz was an abuse of process as it brought the administration of justice into disrepute. The Crown submitted that it was "by no means straightforward to reason from a conclusion reached with respect to the reliability of a witness by an appellate court dealing with a ground of appeal that an applicant's conviction was unreasonable that, in a subsequent trial, the Crown is constrained in the way it can lead evidence from that witness against another accused, who was not the successful applicant". 10. The Crown submitted that the incontrovertible nature of the acquittal of Bubanja and Hristovski meant that the Crown could not allege their guilt in subsequent proceedings where they were the accused. It was submitted, however, that that approach did not prevent the Crown from leading evidence that Hristovski supplied the murder weapon or that Bubanja might have been the source of information concerning the location of the deceased. 11. The Crown contended, referring to Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251; [1994] HCA 42 and R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55, that the doctrine of issue estoppel is not applicable to criminal proceedings. The Crown accepted, however, that Rogers is authority for the proposition that it may be an abuse of process to seek to contravene a finding made by a court in later proceedings against the same party. It was submitted that the fact that the principle only applies in proceedings against the same party was made clear in Likiardopoulos v The Queen (2012) 247 CLR 265; [2012] HCA 37 at [35]-[36]. It was submitted that the general rule is that a non-party is not bound by findings made in another hearing. It was also submitted that findings in another hearing cannot be used as evidence in subsequent proceedings against another party. That was said to be the position both at common law and by virtue of s 91 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW). 12. At the hearing, the Crown emphasised that it was not alleged that Hristovski was part of a joint criminal enterprise to kill the deceased, but merely that he supplied the weapon. It was also emphasised that the evidence in the second trial was different to that in the first. Consideration 1. As is apparent from what I have written above, the primary focus of the argument at the hearing of the appeal focused on ground 2(b) of the grounds of appeal filed on behalf of Koloamatangi. It was argued that the admission of Mr Taylor's evidence controverted Hristovski's acquittal on the charge of murder as the previous judgment established practically, factually and legally that Hristovski was not a party to the murder and did not supply the murder weapon. 2. However, it seems clear that the principle does not extend to challenging an acquittal in proceedings in which the acquitted person is not a party. In Likiardopoulos the appellant and six others were charged with murder. Before trial the prosecution withdrew the charge against one co-accused and accepted pleas of guilty to lesser charges against the remainder except for the appellant. The appellant contended he could not be charged as an accessory for murder in these circumstances. 3. It was first submitted by the appellant that the Crown cannot be heard to say the co-accused were guilty of murder in circumstances where it had been accepted that they were not. It was also submitted by the appellant that to prosecute him as an accessory for murder when the Crown had accepted lesser pleas from the principal offenders, has a tendency to bring the administration of justice into disrepute because there was now on the record an acceptance by the Court at the instance of the Crown that the co-accused were not murderers. 4. These submissions were rejected by the Court. The plurality made the following remarks: "[35] The second of the appellant's submissions quoted above is grounded in estoppel. Relevantly, it asserts that the Crown was precluded from leading evidence to prove that John Likiardopoulos and Aydin murdered the deceased because each had been convicted of his manslaughter. The submission is misconceived. The conviction and sentence of John Likiardopoulos and Aydin for the manslaughter of the deceased was conclusive in proceedings between each man and the Crown. The Crown could not controvert the conviction for manslaughter by leading evidence in subsequent proceedings against either man to establish that he had murdered the deceased. However, John Likiardopoulos and Aydin were strangers to the proceedings brought against the appellant. Their convictions for manslaughter were not conclusive against the world of the facts on which they were based. The Crown was not precluded from adducing evidence to establish the fact that John Likiardopoulos and Aydin murdered the deceased. [36] The first of the appellant's submissions quoted above is also misconceived. As earlier explained, there is no inconsistency between the convictions of John Likiardopoulos and Aydin for manslaughter (or the convictions of Singh and Con Likiardopoulos as accessories after the fact to manslaughter) and the appellant's conviction for murder on the accessorial case. The evidence given at the appellant's trial differed from the facts admitted by the pleas of guilty entered by the other four accused." 1. It follows that the fact that Hristovski was acquitted for murder does not of itself preclude proceeding against the applicants for murder. Nor of itself would it preclude evidence being led in the trial which would tend to prove that Hristovski was involved in the murder. However, the applicants contended that irrespective of the principle of incontrovertibility, it was an abuse of process to lead evidence that Hristovski supplied the gun, in circumstances where the Court of Criminal Appeal acquitted him of murder on the basis it could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the gun was supplied by Hristovski. 2. That seems to me to involve essentially two questions. First, would proceedings against Hristovski alleging offences different to murder but connected with the supply of the gun to Popovic and Koloamatangi contravene the principle of incontrovertibility and second, if so, irrespective of that principle, would it constitute an abuse of process to contend in criminal proceedings against the applicants alone that the applicants murdered the deceased, the murder weapon being supplied by Hristovski at his Warrawong home on the evening of 7 September. 3. So far as the first question is concerned, the principle stated at its narrowest is that an acquittal may not be questioned by any evidence which if accepted would overturn the verdict. In Garrett v The Queen (1977) 139 CLR 437; [1977] HCA 67 Barwick CJ, with whom Stephen, Mason and Jacobs JJ agreed, described the principle as being that "the acquittal may not be questioned or called into question by any evidence which, if accepted, would overturn or tend to overturn the verdict". The width of that proposition, so far as it related to evidence calling the acquittal into question or tending to overturn the verdict, was questioned in R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635; [2002] HCA 55 at [37], [45]-[47], [93]. 4. In Nash v R [2019] NSWCCA 124 the majority of this Court said that the extended principle stated by Barwick CJ in Garrett, that the principle of incontrovertibility applies when an acquittal is called into question by any evidence which if accepted would tend to overturn the verdict, should not be accepted: [2019] NSWCCA 124 at [31]-[32], [39]. 5. In Abdallah v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 294, it was unnecessary to deal with this issue. However, I pointed out at [29] that each of the judgments in Carroll left open the question of whether the wider expression of the principle in Garrett should be accepted. In RG v R [2020] NSWCCA 17 at [42] I expressed reservation as to whether the approach in Nash was correct. However, I followed that decision as no submission was made that it was not. Because of the conclusion I have reached both on this ground and the ultimate disposition of the appeal, it is unnecessary to consider whether in fact the Court in Nash was correct in declining to follow what might be described as seriously considered dicta by a majority of the High Court: Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22 at [134]. 6. Whatever the extent of the principle, it was made clear in Island Maritime Ltd v Filipowski (2006) 226 CLR 328; [2006] HCA 30 that the doctrine was not confined to circumstances where the elements of the second charge are identical to those in respect to which the verdict of acquittal was entered. Gummow and Hayne JJ at [57] stated that to treat the plea of autrefois acquit as merely no more than a form of issue estoppel does not give effect to all the values embraced by the notion of double jeopardy. They stated that "to treat an acquittal on one charge as barring a subsequent prosecution concerning the same events as founded that first charge only where all the elements of the first offence are included in the elements of the second offence not only would fail to accept that the earlier decision was correct, but also would require the individual to relitigate matters that the public interest requires be treated as finally determined." 7. In the present case, the Crown case against Hristovski in the initial proceedings was that he was a party to a joint criminal enterprise to kill the deceased, having supplied the gun for the purpose of it being used in a murder (previous judgment at [18]). Thus it was necessary for the Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt both that Hristovski supplied the gun and that he did it knowing it would be used for the purpose of committing a murder. 8. If Hristovski had been acquitted by the jury at the first trial, then on the narrow view of the principle of incontrovertibility stated as being correct in Nash, the evidence tending to show that Hristovski supplied the gun would not controvert the acquittal. Absent any allegation that Hristovski supplied the gun for the purpose of enabling a murder to be committed, it would not be manifestly inconsistent with his acquittal on that charge. Further, as was pointed out by Mason J in Storey v The Queen (1978) 140 CLR 364 at 397; [1079] HCA 39, compliance with the principle of res judicata does not necessarily exclude the admission at a subsequent trial of evidence which might, if unexplained, tend to suggest that the accused was guilty of an offence for which he had already been acquitted, provided the jury were properly directed as to the use which could be made of it: see also R v Carroll at [92]; RG v R at [48]-[50]. 9. All of the cases to which I have referred above dealt with the situation where the acquittal was an acquittal by a jury. As was pointed out by Gleeson CJ and Hayne J in Carroll at [31]-[40], seldom can a verdict by a jury be taken as a positive finding in favour of the accused, rather than the jury not being satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that one or more of the elements of the offence was not made out, and that in the case of a trial by jury it will not be known why the accused was acquitted. 10. In the present case, however, the reason for the acquittal of Hristovski is clear. A critical element of Adamson J's conclusion was her positive satisfaction that Mr Taylor's evidence about obtaining the gun from Hristovski from Warrawong on the night of 7-8 September 2007 was incorrect, and her considerable doubt that Hristovski provided a gun to Mr Taylor at all and whether the gun in Hristovski's possession was used in the shooting of the deceased (previous judgment at [301]). It seems to me that in those circumstances a further charge against Hristovski involving the supply of the gun would controvert the acquittal on the earlier charge, even though it would not encompass all the elements of the previous offence. 11. The decision of the High Court in AJS v The Queen (2007) 235 CLR 505; [2007] HCA 27 is of some relevance. In that case the accused was charged with an offence of taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a person known to be a lineal descendant (the incest charge), and, as an alternative, committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. The latter charge was an alternative to the former. The jury convicted the appellant of the incest charge and did not proceed to consider the latter. 12. The Court of Appeal of Victoria overturned the conviction of the incest charge on the basis that it was not open on the evidence given to conclude that the acts complained of involved sexual penetration, and ordered a new trial. The High Court held that the Court of Appeal of Victoria should have quashed the conviction of the incest charge, but was empowered to order that there be a new trial limited to the alternative charge. In doing so, the plurality made the following remarks: "[24] When an accused person has been acquitted of a charge by verdict of a jury, it will not be possible to know why the jury reached its verdict. In those circumstances, the reference to the person having the 'full benefit' of an acquittal may reflect the opacity of that verdict. But it is important to recognise that the references made to the 'full benefit' of an acquittal are no more than a particular restatement of a more fundamental principle. That principle is that the verdict, as recorded in the court's record, is not to be controverted. And where, as here, the reasons for quashing the conviction are known, the reasons for directing entry of judgment and verdict of acquittal are known. There would be a controverting of that record only if the jury were to be left in a position where in the course of considering whether the appellant had committed an indecent act they might consider whether there had been, or may have been, an act of digital penetration of the complainant. A concession by the prosecution that the evidence may not be understood by the jury as establishing that there had been that penetration, or in default of such a concession, a direction to that effect, would give the appellant the full benefit of the verdict to which he was and is now entitled in respect of the count of incest." See also Island Maritime at [54]-[55]. 1. In the present case, the previous judgment found that the Crown had not established beyond reasonable doubt that Hristovski participated in the murder by supplying the gun. At least in proceedings to which Hristovski was a party, any evidence seeking to establish that he did so would controvert the acquittal. 2. It should be noted that, contrary to the suggestion made by the Crown, this conclusion does not involve treating as evidence the findings of fact made in the previous proceedings, as distinct from the conclusion in the previous proceedings that one element of the offence charged against Hristovski had not been made out. 3. However, as I have indicated, the doctrine of incontrovertibility does not have application in the present case as Hristovski was not a party in these proceedings. It remains to be considered whether it was an abuse of process to assert in the present case and to lead evidence that the gun was supplied by Hristovski, when the Court of Criminal Appeal in the previous judgment concluded on the evidence in that case that there was at least a reasonable doubt that Hristovski supplied the gun. That falls to be considered in the context that, although no verdict of acquittal was entered in favour of the applicants, they were participants in the trial from which the appeal was brought and in the appeal in which the finding in relation to Hristovski was made. Having regard to the way the Crown put its case at the first trial, it is difficult to see why a verdict of acquittal would not have been entered in favour of the applicants had such an order been sought. However it was not and a new trial was ordered. 4. No question of issue estoppel arises if only for the fact that the doctrine has no application in the criminal law in this country: Rogers at 255, 278; Carroll at [35]-[36]. However, as was pointed out in Carroll at [47], there may be cases where a second prosecution is oppressive and an abuse of process even though there is no direct inconsistency between the new charge and the earlier verdict. 5. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi submitted that the proceedings and the evidence of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz brought the administration of justice into disrepute. It was accepted by Mason CJ in Rogers at 256, referring to Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378 at 395; [1993] HCA 77 and Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] 1 AC 529, that there were two aspects to abuse of process in these circumstances, first, the vexation, oppression and unfairness to the other party and second, the matter complained of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. 6. Hunter involved the collateral attack on a decision on a voir dire that the accused had not been assaulted in the course of making a confession and that the confessions that they made were made voluntarily. Evidence of the confessions was admitted and the appellants convicted. A civil claim by the appellants relying on new forensic evidence that they were unlawfully assaulted and making the same allegations as on the voir dire and at the trial, was struck out as being collateral attack on the previous decision and an abuse of process. Lord Diplock, with whom the other members of the bench agreed, cited with approval the following passage from the speech of Lord Halsbury LC in Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App.Cas. 665: " … I think it would be a scandal to the administration of justice if, the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant were to be permitted by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the same case again." 1. However, notwithstanding the fact that a critical issue in the first trial was relitigated in the present case, I do not think the bringing of the proceedings and the use made of the evidence of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz can be said to be an affront to the administration of justice in the sense referred to in these authorities. First, as I indicated, the present proceedings do not controvert Hristovski's acquittal as Hristovski was not a party. Second, the proceedings were brought as a result of an order that there be a retrial. Third, the retrial did not make the allegation that either Hristovski or Bubanja were parties to the joint criminal enterprise. Fourth, there was nothing to suggest that the retrial would not involve the evidence of Mr Taylor as to the manner in which he obtained the gun. The Crown opened the case on that basis and no application was made to stay the proceedings or to exclude or limit the evidence of Mr Taylor. 2. In these circumstances it does not seem to me that the manner in which the Crown conducted the retrial or the use of the evidence of Mr Taylor and Mr Radz involved an abuse of process. 3. So far as the evidence of Mr Radz was concerned, the decision in the previous judgment related to the admissions allegedly made to him by Bubanja. The Court did not deal with the admissions he alleged were made to him by the applicants. The fact that Mr Radz was found to be a witness who lacked credibility in the previous judgment does not mean his evidence could not be relied on in respect of different admissions by different persons in the present case. 4. It follows that neither ground 1 nor ground 2 of each of the applicant's grounds of appeal has been made out. Ground 3 (Koloamatangi) and ground 5 (Popovic): Unreasonable verdict 1. It was common ground between the parties that the case was put on the basis that Koloamatangi was the shooter. Further, it was not suggested that the jury could find the shooting occurred other than with a gun supplied by Hristovski. The Crown did not attempt to argue the case in this Court on a different basis to how it was run at the trial, nor could it do so: R v King (1985) 17 A Crim R 184 at 187. For this Court to consider the case on a different basis to the way it was put to the jury would impermissibly substitute trial by this Court for a trial by a jury: Lane v R [2018] HCA 28; (2018) 92 ALJR 689 at [59]. In these circumstances the submissions of the parties unsurprisingly focused on the evidence of Mr Taylor with particular reference to telephone calls from which it was contended his movements could be traced on the night of 7-8 September. a The applicants' submissions 1. In contending that the verdict was unreasonable, senior counsel for Koloamatangi referred to Mr Taylor's evidence that after the dinner at Kings Chinese restaurant, he and Koloamatangi dropped Koloamatangi's girlfriend off in Sydney. He referred to Mr Taylor's evidence that he arrived at Popovic's unit at eleven or twelve o'clock that night: see [97] above. 2. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi, referring to the telephone records, said it was impossible for Mr Taylor to have been in Wollongong at eleven or twelve o'clock. He referred in that context to the telephone records which showed a call at 11:25 pm from Koloamatangi's phone which was picked up at a cell tower at Newtown East and one at 11:48 pm which was picked up at Newtown. 3. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi then referred to a call received on Mr Taylor's phone at 11:58:19 from a cell tower at Rockdale, and one at 12:14:49 which was received on Mr Taylor's phone from a cell tower Loftus 2 which he submitted was about 35 or 40 minutes north of Wollongong. He then referred to a call at 12:46:44 which Mr Taylor received from cell tower Wollongong-1. He submitted this demonstrated that Koloamatangi and Mr Taylor did not arrive back in Wollongong until about 12:45 am. 4. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi then referred to a call from Koloamatangi to Popovic at 12:49 am which he submitted demonstrated that Koloamatangi and Mr Taylor had not met up with Popovic by that time. It should be noted that Mr Taylor conceded in cross-examination that, notwithstanding his earlier evidence, he in fact arrived back in Wollongong at about 1:00 am. 5. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi then referred to the call at 1:15 am made by Koloamatangi to Popovic. The call from Koloamatangi's phone was picked up by the Vodafone cell tower at Crown Street Mall, Wollongong, and received by Popovic from an Optus tower Wollongong CBD 3. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi said it was the Crown case that it could be inferred that the call was made in a cul-de-sac outside Hristovski's house so as to prompt Hristovski to bring out the gun. He said this was undermined by Mr Taylor's evidence that he had been at Popovic's house for an hour. He submitted there was no other evidence to support the inference that the call was made outside Hristovski's house. He submitted that it was theoretically possible but unlikely that a call from outside Hristovski's house at Warrawong would have been picked up by a tower at Crown Street Mall. In that context he referred to the evidence of Mr Chang and Mr Khatiz to which I have referred above. He accepted there were a lesser number of Vodafone towers in 2007 than in 2012 when the computer simulation was carried out, but stated that in 2007 there were Vodafone towers at Warrawong and Berkeley. He emphasised that the hours between 1 am and 3 am were not high traffic times and that there was no evidence that terrain made any particular difference. He referred to the evidence of Mr Chang to which I have referred at [252]. However, it should be borne in mind in relation to that evidence that Koloamatangi was using a Vodafone telephone, not an Optus telephone. 6. In relation to Vodafone, senior counsel for Koloamatangi referred to the evidence of Mr Khatiz concerning Exhibit AB to which I have referred at [256]-[259]. He accepted that the range of the Wollongong CBD tower in 2007 would have been greater than 42 kilometres but submitted it was likely that closer towers would have received a call made from Hristovski's house. He also referred to the evidence of Mr Khatiz to which I have referred at [263]-[265]. He emphasised again that there was no calls received through Berkeley or Warrawong where calls on Koloamatangi's phone from outside Hristovski's house would have been likely to end up. 7. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi also referred to Mr Taylor's evidence of his knowledge of Hristovski's address. He referred in particular to the evidence which I have set out at [158]. He submitted the statement made by Mr Taylor that he had gone to Hristovski's house once before was a recent invention. 8. Senior counsel for Koloamatangi also referred to Mr Taylor's cross-examination concerning the colour of the gun which was used in the shooting (see [144]-[146] above). He submitted that in considering the unsafe and unsatisfactory ground, the fact that he had mentioned a particular type of gun coupled with the fact that he got the colour of the gun wrong, did not lead to the conclusion he knew the gun was an Astra gun because Koloamatangi took it out of the bag and used it. He also noted that other witnesses to the shooting suggested the shooter had white skin. 9. In relation to Mr Radz, senior counsel for Koloamatangi referred to his extensive criminal record which I have summarised at [198]-[218]. 10. Senior counsel for Popovic emphasised the inconsistencies in Mr Taylor's evidence which I have summarised above. He submitted that during the course of his evidence Mr Radz admitted that he had lied on at least 11 different occasions. He said that one noteworthy fact of Mr Radz's evidence was his claim that he and Popovic never discussed the murder when they were in gaol and played chess together: see [227]. b The Crown's submissions 1. The Crown referred to Exhibit Y which showed Hristovski's residence, Popovic's residence and the cell towers surrounding their residences. 2. It was submitted by the Crown that Mr Taylor and Koloamatangi were not at Popovic's house for an hour. The Crown accepted that it followed Mr Taylor had to be found unreliable to this extent, but submitted that people are notoriously unreliable on the issue of time. He submitted that the 1:15 am call was the call from Koloamatangi to Popovic for the purpose of arranging the meeting with Hristovski outside his house. He submitted that one possibility was that Mr Taylor and Koloamatangi were at Popovic's unit for a period of less than 11 minutes after 12:52 am or that they were there before 12:49 am for a short period of time. 3. The Crown also sought to trace Mr Taylor's movements by reference to the phone calls made on the evening of 7-8 September 2007. The Crown referred to Mr Taylor's evidence of the dinner at Kings Chinese restaurant: see [153] above. He referred to a call from Koloamatangi's phone to Tara Wilton at 9:05 pm going through Brokers Point, which he submitted indicated that by that time Koloamatangi must have moved from the restaurant. He then referred to a call at 9:43 pm from Koloamatangi to Popovic which was picked up at Engadine, substantially north of Wollongong. He then referred to calls from Koloamatangi's phone up to and including a call at 23:48:53 which was picked up by the Newtown cell tower. 4. The Crown then referred to a call received by Mr Taylor through the Optus cell tower at Rockdale at 11:58:19 and then a call at 12:14:49 from a Mr Scibberas to Mr Taylor through the Optus tower Loftus 2, which he submitted indicated that Mr Taylor was moving south. He then referred to a further call from Mr Scibberas to Mr Taylor at 12:46:44 which was forwarded through the Optus cell tower Wollongong-1. He said that that showed Mr Taylor was on his way back to Wollongong. 5. The Crown then referred to the call at 12:49:58 from Koloamatangi to Popovic. It was accepted that the call made at that time was not a call for the purpose of having Hristovski come out to supply the gun. The Crown submitted that that call occurred later. 6. The Crown pointed out there was no communication between Popovic and Koloamatangi for about 11 minutes between 12:52:21 and 1:03:07. He referred to Mr Taylor's evidence of what occurred in Popovic's unit: see [98]-[100]. He submitted that Mr Taylor could have been there for a shorter period; that he could have been there for less than 10 minutes and then left. As I have indicated, the Crown accepted that Mr Taylor had to be found to be unreliable on this issue. 7. The Crown accepted that during the 10 or 11 minute period between 12:52 am and 1:03 am, Popovic made a number of unsuccessful attempts to call Bubanja, unsuccessfully tried to call Hristovski and had a short four second call with a person called Ned (a pseudonym). It should also be noted that during that period, Mr Taylor received a call from Mr Scibberas that lasted for 46 seconds, and one from an unknown person which lasted for 38 seconds. Both these calls were received by Mr Taylor from the Optus cell tower North Beach 1 which was at the site of the Novotel Hotel. However, Mr Taylor's evidence was that he was not in the vicinity of the Novotel Hotel at that time. 8. The Crown submitted that it was a possibility that the murder was arranged or confirmed in 11 minutes interspersed by a few attempted phone calls. He said another alternative was that it was done before 12:49 am for a similar length of time. 9. The Crown next pointed to the fact that at 1:15 am Koloamatangi called Popovic, the call going through the Vodafone tower at Crown Street Mall and being received by Popovic through the Optus Wollongong CBD 3 tower. This was the call the Crown submitted was for the purpose of arranging for Hristovski to come out of his house to hand over the gun. 10. The Crown referred to a call made by the deceased at 2:59:05 to a taxi company which went through the Vodafone cell tower at Thirroul. He noted that at the time of the call, immediately before his death, the deceased was at Splashes Nightclub. He pointed to the fact the Vodafone coverage maps showed coverage of that tower did not extend anywhere near to Splashes Nightclub. He submitted that that called into question the assumption that a person's location could be established by reference to phone calls that were made. He pointed out the Court had no details of the Vodafone 2007 coverage. 11. The Crown submitted that to the extent the attack on Mr Taylor's evidence was based on the fact that a critical part of his story relating to the visit to Hristovski's house was not supported by phone records, the records were neither exact nor necessarily accurate, and that it would be incorrect to proceed on the assumption that the A and B locations on the map (the locations to which the call went and from which it was received) were surrogates for the physical location of people. The Crown accepted that it was critical to its case that one hour was compressed into 10 minutes, and that the mobile records were so unreliable that they could not be used to reject the proposition that the call at 1:15 am took place outside Hristovski's house. It was submitted that although the jury had to be satisfied the gun was received from Hristovski, that was not a matter which was required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, being an element in a circumstantial case. 12. The Crown then referred to a call at 1:48:50 from Koloamatangi's phone which went through the Brokers Point Vodafone tower. He submitted this was consistent with Mr Taylor and Koloamatangi having gone to Mr Taylor's house to get clothes. He accepted there was a difficulty in picking and choosing between the reliability of particular phone call entries in determining the whereabouts of the maker and recipient of those calls. 13. The Crown referred to Mr Taylor's evidence that the elapsed time between Mr Taylor and Koloamatangi leaving Popovic's unit and parking the car at Splashes was 75 minutes (see [137]-[139]). He referred to a call from Koloamatangi to Mr Taylor at 2:16:31 which was diverted to voicemail. He submitted that was consistent with Koloamatangi and Mr Taylor leaving Popovic's unit a little before 1:03 am, having separated at Splashes at the time of the phone call. The call was routed through Vodafone's Brokers Point tower, rather than the towers closest to Splashes, Crown Street Mall and Wollongong CBD. The Crown also referred to the unanswered calls shown to have been made by Popovic to Mr Taylor and Koloamatangi between 2:29:27 and 2:30:10, a further unanswered call to Koloamatangi at 2:59:28, and a call from Koloamatangi to Popovic at 3:11:53 which went through the Brokers Point tower. He stated this sequence of calls was consistent with Popovic being the "offsite manager". He noted that the call to Mr Taylor at 2:29:41 was forwarded through the Optus tower Wollongong CBD 1800. He referred to Mr Chang's evidence that the call made to an Optus telephone in the Novotel parking area would likely be sent by the North Beach 1 cell tower. He also referred to Mr Chang's evidence, which said that coverage would be affected in extreme weather and if a call was made inside a building. 14. The Crown submitted that subsequent calls showed Koloamatangi and Mr Taylor returning to Sydney, which was consistent with Mr Taylor's evidence. He submitted that the evidence of the skin colour of the shooter was inconclusive. c Submissions in reply 1. In reply, senior counsel for Koloamatangi referred to the fact that the Crown case was that the call at 1:15 am from Koloamatangi to Popovic was made in the cul-de-sac outside Hristovski's house. He said apart from problems with the cell towers, there was a further problem with timing. He referred to the fact that at 12:52:21, Popovic rang Koloamatangi, which he submitted showed that Koloamatangi had not yet arrived at Popovic's unit. He said that a 10 minute meeting could only just be squeezed in and there was perhaps even less time after making allowance for the time between 12:52:21 and the arrival at Popovic's unit. Consideration 1. In Dickson v R [2017] NSWCCA 78 I summarised the principles applicable to an unreasonable verdict ground of appeal as follows: "[84] The principles on which a court will set aside a verdict as unreasonable are well established. In SKA v The Queen (2011) 243 CLR 400; [2011] HCA 13 at [11]-[14], the Court stated the approach to be adopted was that laid down in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 at 492-494, namely that the Court is required to make its own 'independent assessment of the evidence'. If after taking into account the primary responsibility of the jury in determining the question of guilt or innocence and the benefit of the jury having seen or heard the evidence, the Court is left in doubt as to the reasonableness of the verdict, the verdict should be set aside. In M supra the Court also stated (at 494) that '[i]n most cases a doubt experienced by an appellate court will be a doubt which a jury ought also to have experienced' and '[i]t is only where a jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence is capable of resolving a doubt … that the court may conclude that no miscarriage of justice occurred': see also MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53 at [59]. [85] As was pointed out by Hayne J in Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559; [2007] HCA 30 at [113] (Gleeson CJ and Heydon J agreeing), for a verdict to be unreasonable it is not enough that a review of the evidence shows only that it was possible for a jury to reach a different conclusion. However, for a Court to conclude there was no miscarriage, it is not sufficient that there was evidence on which a jury could convict. If after giving full weight to the primacy of the jury, the Court is left in reasonable doubt as to the verdict, it is only where the jury's advantage in seeing and hearing the evidence is capable of resolving the doubt that the Court can conclude that there was no miscarriage of justice. [86] In considering the issue in a case such as the present where the Crown relies on circumstantial evidence, it is important to bear in mind that the task of the appellate court is to consider and weigh all the circumstances in considering and deciding whether there is an inference consistent with innocence reasonably open on the evidence. The evidence is not to be looked at in a piecemeal fashion: R v Baden-Clay (2016) 90 ALJR 1013; [2016] HCA 35 at [46]-[48]." 1. In considering this question, it is also important to bear in mind the fact that the jury is the constitutional tribunal for dealing with contested issues of fact and that the setting aside of a jury verdict is a serious step not to be taken without particular regard to the advantage enjoyed by the jury: R v Baden-Clay (2016) 258 CLR 308; [2016] HCA 35 at [65]. 2. Notwithstanding the primacy of the jury as the tribunal of fact and the advantages they had in seeing the witnesses, in particularly Mr Taylor and Mr Radz, in my opinion it was not open to them to find the applicants guilty of the murder in the particular circumstances of the present case. 3. The Crown's case was that Koloamatangi shot the deceased with a gun supplied by Hristovski. There was no suggestion that the gun could have been obtained from any other source. It follows in my opinion that it was an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning, to lead to a conclusion of guilt, that Hristovski supplied the gun. This was therefore a matter which required proof beyond reasonable doubt: Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 576, 578, 581; [1990] HCA 56. 4. The evidence of Mr Taylor was of critical importance to the Crown case. Mr Taylor was a person who, on his own admission, was involved in the shooting and had received an indemnity from prosecution. His evidence thus needed to be treated with caution: see the decision of this Court in Kanann v R [2006] NSWCCA 109 in the context of warnings to be given pursuant to s 165(1)(d) of the Evidence Act. 5. Mr Taylor's evidence initially was that he arrived back in Wollongong from Sydney at about 11 pm or 12 am on the night of 7-8 September. Mr Taylor then said he went to Popovic's unit where the conversation which is referred to at [98]-[100] above took place. He did not say in chief how long he and Koloamatangi stayed at Popovic's unit. He said he then went to Hristovski's house, back to his home and then to Splashes Nightclub. In cross-examination he agreed that the total lapsed time between leaving Popovic's unit and parking at Splashes was around 75 minutes: see [139]. In chief he said he was parked at Splashes Nightclub for about an hour to an hour and a half, or maybe two hours, until the shooting took place: see [108]. 6. As I have said, Mr Taylor in chief did not provide an estimate of the time spent at Popovic's unit. However, to enable him to drive to Hristovski's house at Warrawong, return to his house and then arrive at Splashes at 2 pm one hour before the shooting, it would have been necessary for him to leave Popovic's unit at 12:45 am (75 minutes before his arrival at Splashes at 2 am). 7. The difficulty is that Mr Taylor's evidence that he arrived back in Wollongong between 11 pm and 12 am was demonstrably incorrect. In cross-examination Mr Taylor initially maintained that he and Koloamatangi drove straight back from Sydney, but when faced with the telephone records, ultimately conceded that it could be correct that he remained in the Sydney metropolitan area for one and a half hours. Mr Taylor was referred to the telephone call from Koloamatangi to Popovic at 00:49:58 and agreed that it looked as if he and Koloamatangi had not met Popovic by that time. 8. The Crown accepted that, having regard to the time that Koloamatangi and Mr Taylor reached Wollongong, there would have been no time for a one hour meeting. The Crown's position ultimately was that there was a very short meeting of about 11 minutes or less between 12:52:21 and 1:03:07: see [332]. The Crown accepted Mr Taylor had to be found unreliable on this issue. In cross-examination by counsel for Koloamatangi, although Mr Taylor generally adhered to his statement that the meeting took an hour, when confronted with the fact that that meant he left Popovic's unit about 2 am he said it was an estimate, and that it could have been a shorter time of 10 to 15 minutes. He then said "It can go over 10, 15 minutes to my knowledge". However, in subsequent cross-examination by counsel for Popovic, he said his position remained that he was there for an hour: see [155]. 9. There is another difficulty with Mr Taylor's evidence surrounding the obtaining of the gun. The Crown case as articulated in the appeal was that the call at 1:15 am was from Koloamatangi to Popovic for the purpose of arranging for Hristovski to come outside to hand over the gun. The suggestion is said to be supported by the fact that five minutes later a call was made from the phone of Emily Martin, Popovic's then wife, to Hristovski. Other than that, there is no evidence that Popovic was in contact with Hristovski until 1:59:52. 10. There is a further difficulty. Mr Taylor was asked about the call at 1:15 am. He did not suggest that the call was made from outside Hristovski's house. Rather, he speculated that the call was made from Popovic's unit: see [134]-[135]. Ultimately, he seemed to resort to his original position that he arrived at Popovic's unit at 12 am: [160]. 11. There are two further difficulties with the Crown theory. The first is the unsatisfactory evidence that Mr Taylor gave concerning his knowledge of Hristovski's house: see [158]. Further, Hristovski's then girlfriend, Amy Ewen, stated that when she woke in the early morning Hristovski was not at the house: see [175]. These matters, although by no means conclusive, cast further doubt on the Crown theory. 12. Much reliance was placed by the applicants on the fact that the call said to be made outside Hristovski's house was routed through the Vodafone tower at Crown Street Mall rather than the cell towers at Warrawong or Berkeley. I do not think this had the significance attributed to it by the applicants. The Vodafone coverage map was not based on the cell towers Vodafone had in the area in 2007, which was common ground were less than those which existed in 2012 at the time the coverage maps were prepared. Significantly, Hristovski himself made calls at 1:28:50 and 1:29:15 which were routed through the Vodafone cell tower Wollongong CBD, whilst calls at 1:29:41 and 1:29:53 were routed through Berkeley. In these circumstances, the fact that Koloamatangi's call was routed through Crown Street Mall does not disprove the Crown theory. Equally, it does nothing to support it. 13. Finally, there is Mr Taylor's evidence of the colour of the gun. His evidence that it was silver was inconsistent with that of the other witnesses who described it as black. He agreed Amy Ewen may well have told him she saw a silver gun in Hristovski's premises. Amy Ewen said she discussed her police statement with Mr Taylor and she agreed the statement mentioned a silver gun. Once again this evidence of itself would not give rise to a reasonable doubt that Hristovski supplied the gun, particularly when Mr Taylor correctly identified the gun as an Astra. However, it does not support the Crown theory. 14. The most significant piece of evidence supporting the proposition that the deceased was shot by either Koloamatangi or Mr Taylor at the request of Popovic is the sequence of calls to which I have referred at [343]. However, that sequence does not lend any support to the theory that the gun was obtained from Hristovski, an integral part of the Crown case. Further, Popovic's attempted call to Mr Taylor at 2:29:41 was received through the Optus tower Wollongong CBD 1-800 rather than through the North Beach 1 tower which was adjacent to the Novotel Hotel. The coverage maps for Optus did not have the same difficulties as those for Vodafone. 15. Taking all these matters into account, I am left with a reasonable doubt that Mr Taylor's evidence establishes that the deceased was shot by Koloamatangi at the request of Popovic. In particular, I am not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt or for that matter, on the balance of probabilities, that Hristovski supplied a gun to Mr Taylor and Koloamatangi to enable the murder to take place. 16. There remains the evidence of Mr Radz. Having regard to his evidence, Mr Radz could not only be described as a seasoned criminal but also as a serial liar. Further, as is apparent from his cross-examination, a number of lies were told in an endeavour to either obtain bail or get an indemnity from prosecution. He was an entirely unreliable witness. 17. The admissions Mr Radz said were made to him were made in circumstances which could only be described as unusual. The admission by Popovic was made apparently out of the blue on a walk in a park: [188]. Notwithstanding this, Mr Radz stated that the murder was never discussed with Popovic whilst they were together in gaol playing chess: see [227]. 18. The admissions said by Radz to have been made to him by Koloamatangi were made in equally unusual circumstances. The first was made through a high wire fence, apparently unsolicited. As was put in cross-examination, Koloamatangi was said to have come up to the fence and, without any discussion, made the admission. 19. Mr Radz admitted that from the time of that admission until 2013 he had no contact with Koloamatangi. His evidence was that after that lapse of five years, he and Koloamatangi passed in a prison corridor and he asked Koloamatangi whether he had been paid. Mr Radz accepted the admission was made when he and Koloamatangi were passing like ships in the night. Once again the circumstances of the admission were, to say the least, unusual. 20. Further, the admissions he claimed to have been made to him were different to those which he said were made in the interview of 4 July 2013 with Mr Durant: see [266]-[269] above. 21. Having regard to the unreliability of Mr Radz and the unusual circumstances in which the admissions were made, it was not open to the jury in my opinion to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicants were guilty of the murder on the basis of his evidence, whether alone or in conjunction with the other evidence at the trial including that of Mr Taylor. 22. It follows, this ground of appeal has been made out and the verdicts of guilty should be quashed. The additional grounds of appeal 1. Popovic relied on two additional grounds of appeal. 2. Ground 3: The learned trial judge erred on 4 August 2017 in admitting evidence of events at the North Wollongong Hotel on 31 August 2007 and immediately following. 3. Ground 4: The learned trial judge erred on 4 August 2017 in admitting evidence of events involving Dalibor (Daki) Bubanja at the Splashes Nightclub. 4. Because of my conclusion that the verdicts were unreasonable, these grounds can be dealt with shortly. Ground 3 1. Ground 3 involves the admission of evidence of events at the North Wollongong Hotel on 31 August 2007. The evidence was CCTV footage of a meeting between the deceased, Zoran Bubanja and Daki Bubanja at the hotel. CCTV footage showed there was some finger pointing and arm movement. There was no evidence of what was said in the conversation. 2. The trial judge in her judgment of 4 August 2017 [2017] NSWSC 1022, considered that contrary to the view taken by Adamson J in the previous judgment, the CCTV footage could be considered by the jury as showing a heated exchange, which ultimately resulted in the telephone conversation between Popovic and the deceased to which I referred at [168]-[170]. 3. It seems to me that the CCTV footage showed a meeting which was at least argumentative and which provides some context to the conversation between Popovic and the deceased about which Ms Sekuljica gave evidence. Although the evidence could properly be described as being on the periphery of what was relevant, I do not think her Honour erred in the conclusion she reached. Further, her Honour was correct in stating that in light of the fact that the jury would be directed that the evidence could only be used to place a subsequent telephone conversation in context, the evidence should not be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act. 4. This ground of appeal has not been made out. Ground 4 1. This ground apparently relates to the evidence of Mr Harris, Mr Walker and Mr Castagna of an argument between the deceased and Bubanja at Splashes on the night of the murder. So far as Mr Harris' evidence is concerned, the trial judge in the same judgment of 4 August 2017 ruled the evidence admissible on the basis of evidence given by him on a voir dire. The difficulty is that Mr Harris ultimately did not give the evidence complained of but merely said he saw two men engaged in conversation: see [18] above. Thus the ruling whether right or wrong had no effect on the trial. 2. I have set out the evidence of Mr Walker above. His evidence did not go as far as that given by him on the voir dire in respect to which her Honour made the ruling: see [2017] NSWSC 1022 at [77]. Notwithstanding, he did give evidence of an argument between Bubanja and the deceased at Splashes Nightclub on the night of the murder. 3. Her Honour stated it was relevant to show an ongoing feeling of ill-will between the deceased and Bubanja. The difficulty is that Bubanja had been acquitted of the murder. Whilst there may have been ongoing ill-will between the deceased and Bubanja that cannot be linked to the murders, particularly when having regard to the evidence of Mr Taylor, the conversation at Splashes took place sometime after the murder was alleged to have been planned. In my opinion, her Honour erred in the admission of this evidence. 4. The same may be said of the evidence of Mr Castagna. I have set out his evidence at [50]. He accepted that the deceased arrived at Splashes at 12:30 am. He said an argument took place but did not identify the persons involved. As with the evidence of Mr Walker, it does not seem to me to be relevant. Her Honour with respect erred in admitting it. 5. That said, the evidence the subject of this ground in the context of the trial seems entirely inconsequential. Having regard to the conclusion which I have reached it is not necessary to consider the operation of the proviso to s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). Conclusion 1. Having regard to Order 1 of the orders made by the Court on 24 September 2019, orders should be made suppressing those portions of the judgment which tend to identify Mr Radz. The parties, and the Commissioner of Police, will have the opportunity within 7 days of delivery of this judgment to make submissions as to whether the suppression order should be varied. 2. In the result I make the following orders: 1. Grant the applicants leave to appeal. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Quash the conviction of the appellants for the murder of Dragan Sekuljica and in lieu thereof enter a verdict of acquittal. 4. Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act) the following portions of the judgment be suppressed until further order on the grounds set out in s 8(1)(a), (c) and (e) of the Act: [179] second sentence; [184]-[185]; [196]-[205]; [207] third sentence, after "on the way" and before "so I just"; [210] second sentence; [211]-[219]; [220] first and second sentences; [222] first sentence after "made his first induced statement". 5. Order 4 shall apply throughout the Commonwealth. 6. Grant leave to the parties and the Commissioner of Police to make an application within 7 days to vary the suppression order. 1. BELL P: I agree with Bathurst CJ. 2. PRICE J: I agree with Bathurst CJ and the orders he proposes. ********** Amendments 16 April 2020 - Numbering of paragraphs amended 22 April 2020 - Redacted paragraphs amended 29 April 2020 - Order made by the Court: "Pursuant to s.13 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) ('the Act'), the suppression order over the following parts of the judgment be rescinded: [179], second sentence; [184]-[185]; [196]-[197]; [210], second sentence." 30 April 2020 - Order made by the Court: "Pursuant to s 13 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the suppression order over the following parts of the judgment be rescinded: [198]-[202]." 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: 30 April 2020