Citation: R v Sigalla (No. 5) [2016] NSWSC 1921
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 14 November 2016
Judge(s): Adamson J
Background
The accused stood charged with offences relating to alleged conduct between December 2006 and 2 March 2009, connected to his role as a director of TZ Ltd and his employment with Telezygology Inc. He resigned from both positions on 2 June 2009, after which a new board was appointed and began investigating payments made to the accused and his associated companies.
Those investigations led to civil proceedings being commenced by TZ Ltd against the accused and two of his companies, with the accused also bringing cross-proceedings against TZ Ltd. All of that civil litigation was ultimately resolved by a deed of settlement and deed of release, both executed on 17 August 2011.
At trial, counsel for the accused sought to tender three documents into evidence: a 2009 deed of release executed at the time of his resignation, and the two 2011 deeds concluding the civil proceedings. The Crown opposed the tender of all three.
Legal Issues
- Whether the 2009 Deed of Release was relevant to the criminal proceedings and therefore admissible.
- Whether the 2011 Deed of Settlement and 2011 Deed of Release were relevant to the criminal proceedings and therefore admissible.
- Whether civil settlement agreements between the accused and TZ Ltd could constitute evidence of any entitlement or admission relevant to the criminal charges.
Decision
Adamson J rejected the tender of all three documents on the ground of relevance. The 2009 Deed of Release was executed before the new board had any opportunity to investigate the transactions the subject of the criminal proceedings, and accordingly bore no bearing on the trial.
Regarding the 2011 deeds, her Honour accepted a narrow point raised by defence counsel: it may be relevant for the jury to know that the civil proceedings were resolved, to avoid idle speculation about their outcome. However, the specific terms of that resolution were a different matter entirely.
Her Honour reasoned that the detailed terms of a civil compromise reflect the commercial interests of contracting parties and bind only those parties. Such arrangements do not constitute evidence of the accused's entitlement or lack thereof in relation to the payments at issue. Further, because the Crown opposed the tender, it was plain that the Crown did not rely on anything in the agreements as an admission against the accused.
On that basis, the documents were found to be irrelevant and therefore inadmissible under section 56(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- Under section 56(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), documents that are irrelevant to the issues in a criminal trial are inadmissible and must be rejected.
- The Supreme Court held that a civil deed of release executed before an investigating board had analysed the relevant transactions had no bearing on a criminal trial arising from those transactions.
- Civil settlement agreements reflect commercial compromises between contracting parties and do not, of themselves, constitute evidence of entitlement or non-entitlement in related criminal proceedings.
- Where the Crown does not rely on a settlement document as containing an admission against the accused, that consideration reinforces a finding of irrelevance.
- A distinction exists between informing a jury that civil proceedings were resolved (which may be appropriate to prevent speculation) and placing the detailed terms of that resolution before the jury (which risks distraction from the actual issues at trial).
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 56(2)
Cases cited:
- None cited in this decision.