Citation: R v Ronald Edward Medich (No. 39) [2018] NSWSC 373
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 23 March 2018
Judge(s): Bellew J
Background
The accused stood trial for the murder of a business associate and the intimidation of that associate's wife. The Crown's case was that the accused was motivated to arrange the murder because of a serious and costly falling out with the deceased, arising from protracted civil litigation between them in both the Supreme Court and the Federal Court.
A central plank of the Crown's motive case was the financial toll the litigation had taken on the accused. The Crown alleged the accused had complained to others about the costs he had incurred, and sought to lead evidence of those costs, including a summary schedule of expenses, to support the inference that financial grievance drove him to arrange the killing.
The accused did not object to most of the costs evidence, but specifically challenged the admissibility of evidence relating to costs incurred in one set of proceedings, referred to throughout the trial as the "Tilley proceedings." Those proceedings concerned a property development at Point Piper and a series of loan arrangements that had unravelled between the parties.
Legal Issues
- Whether evidence of the costs the accused incurred in the Tilley proceedings was relevant to his motive for murder.
- Whether the Crown's proposed summary schedule of costs was admissible under s 50 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) as a summary of voluminous documents.
- Whether the schedule ought to be excluded under s 137 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) on the basis that its probative value was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, or that it was misleading.
Decision
Bellew J admitted the costs evidence relating to the Tilley proceedings. His Honour held that evidence of the financial burden the accused carried as a result of the litigation was plainly relevant to the Crown's motive case. The accused had allegedly complained to others about those costs, and the fact that those costs arose from the Tilley proceedings did not sever their connection to the broader motive the Crown sought to establish.
On the admissibility of the schedule, Bellew J found it satisfied the requirements of s 50 of the Evidence Act. Section 50 permits a party to adduce evidence of the contents of two or more documents in summary form where examining the original documents in full would be impractical due to their volume or complexity. The schedule served that purpose, and the accused raised no challenge to the accuracy of its contents.
His Honour also rejected the submission that the schedule was misleading. No formal application for exclusion under s 137 had been made by the accused, but Bellew J addressed the point squarely: there was nothing misleading about the schedule, and no basis existed for concern that the jury might misuse it. Had a s 137 application been made, his Honour indicated it would have been refused.
Orders Made
No orders were made in this decision.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence of litigation costs incurred by an accused is capable of being relevant to motive in a murder trial where the Crown alleges financial grievance arising from that litigation as a driver of the offending.
- Under s 50 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), a court may permit a party to adduce a summary of voluminous or complex documents, provided the procedural requirements of that section are satisfied, including service of the summary and a reasonable opportunity to inspect the underlying documents.
- A challenge to a documentary summary as potentially "misleading" will not succeed in the absence of any identified inaccuracy in its contents or any demonstrated risk that the jury will misuse it.
- Where no formal application for exclusion under s 137 is made, a court is not obliged to conduct that balancing exercise, though Bellew J indicated he would have refused any such application on the facts.
- The scope of a relevance objection is limited to the specific evidence challenged: the accused's concession that most costs evidence was admissible did not preclude a discrete objection to the Tilley-related costs, but that objection ultimately failed on relevance grounds.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 50, 137
Cases
- Adam v R (2001) 207 CLR 96; [2001] HCA 57
- Nye v New South Wales [2002] NSWSC 1270
- R v Pearce [2001] NSWCCA 447; 48 ATR 390
- Zaknic Pty Ltd v Svelte Corporation Pty Ltd (1995) 140 ALR 701