The Court refused the prosecutor's application for five witnesses (save one consented) to give evidence by audio visual link in a criminal prosecution under the POEO Act, holding that it would be unfair to the defendant under s 5B(2)(c) and s 7(2)(c) of the AVL Act. For important witnesses whose credit or reliability of opinions would likely be challenged, and where voluminous documentary evidence was involved, the loss of gravity, immediacy and the supervising presence of the judge inherent in AVL evidence constituted unfairness that precluded the Court from making the direction. The Court confirmed that once satisfied of unfairness under s 5B(2)(c), the prohibition is mandatory and no residual discretion exists.
The full text is available to signed-in members.