R v Briggs (No 6) [2014] NSWSC 855 (12 June 2014)

Last Updated: 2 July 2014

Supreme Court New South Wales

Case Title:	R v Briggs (No 6)
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2014] NSWSC 855
Hearing Date(s):	12 June 2014
Decision Date:	12 June 2014
Jurisdiction:	Common Law - Criminal
Before:	Button J
Decision:	My direction of 10 June 2014 requiring Dr Vuletic to give evidence in the witness box in person is revoked.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - EVIDENCE - previous direction that an expert agency witness was to give evidence in person - change in circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW), s 5BAA
Category:	Interlocutory applications
Parties:	Regina Cecil Paul Briggs
Representation
- Counsel:	Counsel: Mr J McLennan (Crown) Mr C Bruce SC (Accused)
- Solicitors:	Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid NSW (Accused)
File Number(s):	2012/399846

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1. HIS HONOUR: On 10 June 2014 I ordered, pursuant to s 5BAA of the Evidence (Audio and Audio Visual Links) Act 1998 (NSW), that the pathologist Dr Vuletic must give evidence in person rather than by audio visual link. That order was an exception to the general position encapsulated in s 5BAA(1) of the Act, namely that a "government agency witness" such as Dr Vuletic must give evidence to the Court by way of audio visual link.

2. That direction of mine was founded on two matters that pertained at the time. The first was that it seemed that there would be a degree of contention about the evidence of the witness, and it was felt by the parties that it was more appropriate in those circumstances that the witness be able to be assessed by the jury in the witness box in person.

3. The second aspect was that defence counsel proposed to have the witness examine in person in the witness box at least two items that had been retrieved from the scene of the alleged offence.

4. However, in the past day or so those circumstances have changed. The first change is that defence counsel has had a conference with the witness in person, and it seems that there will be either very little contention about her evidence or perhaps none at all.

5. The second change is with regard to the logistical question. During that conference, the witness had the opportunity to examine directly the two items, and will be in a position to give evidence about them, even though she will now, it is proposed, be giving evidence by way of audio visual link.

6. In short, the two aspects of the matter that led me to make that order on 10 June 2014 have been resolved. The result is that the parties jointly submit that my order of that date should be revoked, thereby causing the matter to revert to the default position contained in s 5BAA(1); namely, that the witness must give evidence by way of audio visual link. In all of the circumstances, I consider that the joint application is soundly appropriate.

7. I make the following order: my direction of 10 June 2014 requiring Dr Vuletic to give evidence in the witness box in person is revoked.

**********