(
(
·From: Ch r istopher Legoe Chambers To:State OPP 31/10/2008 08:52 #129 P.001/004
REDACTED
Christopher Legoe Chambers Christopher Legoe Chambers Ply lid ABN 67 066 092 448
Date:
From:
31 October 2008
Robert Kane
Level 1, 96 Gouger Street, Adefalde SA 5000 www.legoechambers.com.au
T 08 8113 3400 • F 08 8113 3499 [email protected]
To: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Attention: I
BMB
Fax No: 8207 1799
Re: William Keith Ellis
Pages: 4 (including cover sheet)
Original to Follow: Yes
Please note this document and any pages following are intended solely for the named addressee and are confidential. If you have received this transmission in error, please contact us immediately. This fax cover sheet and the following pages are private and protected by legal professional privilege.
Rule 9 Application to follow
31110 '08 FRI 08: 51 [TX/RX NO 9652] l4J 001
SA.0039.008.0016_R
(
(
From: Chr istopher Legoe Chambers To :State DPP 31/10/2008 08:52
F.D.N.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
No. SCCRM
BETWEEN
WILLIAM KEITH ELLIS Applicant
And
THE QUEEN Respondent
Date of document: Settled by: Filed by (or on behalf of): Date of filing: Prepared by:
RULE 9 APPLICATION
31 October 2008 Robert Kane William Keith Ellis 31 October 2008 Robert Kane Christopher Legoe Chambers (L 1740) Level 1/96 Gouger Street ADELAIDE SA 5000
File principal: Telephone: Facsimile: DX:
Ben Sale 8221 6497 8221 6855 NIA
#129 P.002/004
Pursuant to Rule 9.01 notice is hereby given that the applicant WILLIAM
KEITH ELLIS of Cl- Ben Sale, 306 King William Street, Adelaide in the State
of South Australia hereby applies to the court for a voir dire hearing seeking
the making of the following orders:
31110 '08 FRI 08: 51 fTX/RX NO 96521 ~ 002
SA.0039.008.0017_R
(
F ro~ : Chr i s t ophe r legoe Ch ambers · To :State OPP 31/10/2008 08:52 #129 P.003/004
2
Order(s) Sought
1.1 That pursuant to s278 (2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935
SA, Counts 1 - 15 of the Information of the 3rd of September 2007
Sessions be severed and separate trials ordered with respect to the
Counts relevant to each complainant namely:
(i) Graham Ross Rundle: Counts 1; 2; 3; 4 & 5;
REDACTED (ii)
(iii)IBMK
(iv) REDACTED
(V} 1BMN
Counts 6 & 7
I Count 8
Counts 9; 10 & 11, and
!counts 12; 13; 14 & 15.
Particulars of the grounds relied upon
1.2 It is contended that the proposed evidence with respect to each count
is not cross-admissible with respect to the other counts in the case at
Bar: Hoch v. R (1988} CLR 292; Pfennig v. R (1994 - 1995) 182 CLR
461 ; Sutton v. R (1983 - 1984} 152 CLR 528; Liddy v. R (2002) 81
SASR 22. Phillips v. R (2006} 225 CLR 303; R v. Wallace [2008]SASC
( 47 (unreported) (BC200801135).
1.3 Further it is submitted that the undoubted prejudice which would result
from the admission of evidence with respect to each count, which is not
cross admissible with respect to the other counts on the Information,
would not be adequately safe guarded against by directions from the
learned trial judge.
1.4 That the circumstances of the contact between the complainants
Graham Ross Rundle and E I (referred to in the
----- ------31/ 10 ' 08 FRI 08 : 51 [TX/ RX NO 96521 ~003
SA.0039.008.0018_R
(
(
From:Christopher Legoe Chambe rs To: St at e OP P 31/10/2008 08 :53 #129 P. 004/004
3
statement of jBMK !dated the 29th of October 2008 at page 6) give rise
to a possibility of collaboration and concoction between the ~· \
complainants: Hoch v. R (1988) 165 CLR 292; Reg v. Kilbourne [1973) ! I
AC 729; Boardman v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1975) AC 421; / /
Liddy v. R (2002) 81 SASR 22; Pfennig v. R (1994 - 1995) 182 CLR j
461; BRS v. R (1997) 191 CLR 275.
Order(s) Sought
2.1 That the proposed evidence contained in various witness statements
concerning alleged uncharged acts of assault and unlawful threats be
excluded.
Particulars of the grounds relied upon
2.2 It is submitted that the proposed evidence is not relevant to any issue
in the case at bar, or in the alternative is more prejudicial than
probative.
31/ 10 ' 08 FRI 08: 51 [TX/ RX NO 965 2 l ~ 004
SA.0039.008.0019_R