Found Deceased Australia - Karen Ristevski, 47, Melbourne, Vic, 29 June 2016 - #16 *Arrest*

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sarah Ristevski’s testimony could decide Borce Ristevski’s fate
HOW the testimony of Sarah Ristevski could make or break the case against her father, who has been charged with killing her mother.......

At a hearing this week, Magistrate Suzanne Cameron told the court that Sarah Ristevski, 22, would need advice in relation to her rights in giving evidence about her father.
Mr Boas said Ms Cameron was referring to a provision that allowed the children of defendants to refuse to testify against their parents, in the same way a husband or wife cannot be compelled to give evidence against their spouse.

“Whether or not a family member is compellable is a balancing exercise for the court,” Mr Boas told news.com.au
“The court balances the impact of compelling the witness to testify with the impact on the relationship and weighs that against the nature and gravity of the offence and the interests of justice being served.
“So she needs to be advised that she has the right before she is called to testify. If the judge makes the decision that her evidence is needed, compels her to give evidence and she refuses, she can be charged with contempt of court.
“Then it becomes quite a serious matter that can see a person jailed for anywhere from three months to a year.
“It really depends just how crucial Sarah’s evidence is to the prosecution case and we don’t know that yet.”............

“All witnesses will be asked to remain outside the court until such time as they have completed giving evidence.”
However, because of their blood ties to the defendant, the siblings are not banned from talking to each other or their father.
“Generally you don’t have contact between the accused and prosecution witnesses and bail conditions will say don’t contact witnesses or engage in activity that can be considered unreasonable interference,” Mr Boas said.
“But in this case there is nothing to stop Sarah from communicating with her father or visiting him in jail and nothing to prevent her from discussing the case with him.”


http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...e/news-story/b9e580f9b88e98a7722997852921ba8e

Soso,
If Judge requests Sarah testifies, and she refuses, she may not be charged with 'contempt of court': (Judge feeling she has been through enough!!!) would Jury be aware of this?
Perhaps not!
 
I think that if Sarah thinks that her father will be convicted, she will cave. She was going with the money and as long as he was supplying it, she was fine with whatever he did.
 
Soso,
If Judge requests Sarah testifies, and she refuses, she may not be charged with 'contempt of court': (Judge feeling she has been through enough!!!) would Jury be aware of this?
Perhaps not!

:dunno:

As a witness you can give evidence of what you saw, did or heard first hand. Information you received from other people, such as something you were told about but did not see yourself, generally cannot be used in court. This is called hearsay.

https://victimsandwitnesses.opp.vic.gov.au/court-process/giving-evidence

I guess it all comes down to what Sarah saw, did or heard.
Thus far we know she gave the disappearing radio interview and then zip.
When was it she said Karen went ballistic.
Can't remember did Borce tell her that or did she witness it first hand?
 
Argh, they were complex.
I am sure there was a bit they could get there hands on to meet important priorities.

Defence counsel Sam Norton on Wednesday told the court his client's financial circumstances were "complex" and that it took some time for Legal Aid to give the nod to fund his legal costs.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/...e-of-karen-murder-charge-20180418-p4zaaf.html
Complex to me means robbing Peter to pay Paul, if you are then afforded legal aid.
 
I know this is a little bit different, but not so different considering what Mr Boas had to say about family privilege in testifying. But it has set a precedent in Australia. A precedent that all courts can now follow, if they wish.

In 2011, the High Court overturned a decision that a wife could claim spousal privilege and keep quiet in court about things she knew about her husband with regard to a crime he had committed. This particular wife was then compelled to speak, or face contempt charges.


Professor Bates says each privileged relationship has to be judged individually.
"The argument in favour of [spousal privilege] is that marital communications are such an important part of marriage that they should be protected," he said.

"It may be that the policy view now is that there are some things that are more important than the protection of marital communications - serious criminal offences.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-30/court-overturns-wife27s-right-to-silence/3703892
 
I think that if Sarah thinks that her father will be convicted, she will cave. She was going with the money and as long as he was supplying it, she was fine with whatever he did.
From a limited observation of both dad and daughter. I would suggest that BR and SR to coin a phrase "are as thick as thieves". My thoughts only I do not believe that she was going for the money angle.
 
From a limited observation of both dad and daughter. I would suggest that BR and SR to coin a phrase "are as thick as thieves". My thoughts only I do not believe that she was going for the money angle.

I’m hoping she was just naive believing her dad couldn’t have done this to her mum. It would be so hard to comprehend. Moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I’m hoping she was just naive believing her dad couldn’t have done this to her mum. It would be so hard to comprehend. Moo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Again my thoughts only SR would certainly be privy to what has transpired, and yes hard to comprehend. Will SR throw her dad under a bridge...I don't think so.
 
From a limited observation of both dad and daughter. I would suggest that BR and SR to coin a phrase "are as thick as thieves". My thoughts only I do not believe that she was going for the money angle.

:wink:
Did anyone notice any body language between the two when they were seen together?
Fear, animosity or unadulterated hatred?
:wink:
 
It is standard procedure for the crown to subpoena witnesses who have given statements to police, as Sarah and her father did in the early days when Karen was still a missing person.

She can also be called by the defence as a witness and of course both sides have the opportunity to cross-examine her.

At a hearing this week, Magistrate Suzanne Cameron told the court that Sarah Ristevski, 22, would need advice in relation to her rights in giving evidence about her father.

Mr Boas said Ms Cameron was referring to a provision that allowed the children of defendants to refuse to testify against their parents, in the same way a husband or wife cannot be compelled to give evidence against their spouse.

“Whether or not a family member is compellable is a balancing exercise for the court,” Mr Boas told news.com.au

“The court balances the impact of compelling the witness to testify with the impact on the relationship and weighs that against the nature and gravity of the offence and the interests of justice being served.

“So she needs to be advised that she has the right before she is called to testify. If the judge makes the decision that her evidence is needed, compels her to give evidence and she refuses, she can be charged with contempt of court.

“Then it becomes quite a serious matter that can see a person jailed for anywhere from three months to a year.

“It really depends just how crucial Sarah’s evidence is to the prosecution case and we don’t know that yet.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...e/news-story/b9e580f9b88e98a7722997852921ba8e
 
:wink:
Did anyone notice any body language between the two when they were seen together?
Fear, animosity or unadulterated hatred?
:wink:
My feeling was, based on video and photos: She needed her father for protection from media as his "only" + "little" child. If not for that, she didn't need him so much and he seemed to be not that important to her, neither as the grieving father nor as a possible culprit.
 
It is standard procedure for the crown to subpoena witnesses who have given statements to police, as Sarah and her father did in the early days when Karen was still a missing person.

Yes, I believe it is very usual. If it contributes to proving their case - or if it proves that someone had been lying and therefore much of their testimony should be disregarded.
 
Yes, I believe it is very usual. If it contributes to proving their case - or if it proves that someone had been lying and therefore much of their testimony should be disregarded.

Generally you don’t have contact between the accused and prosecution witnesses and bail conditions will say don’t contact witnesses or engage in activity that can be considered unreasonable interference,” Mr Boas said.

But in this case there is nothing to stop Sarah from communicating with her father or visiting him in jail and nothing to prevent her from discussing the case with him.”

http://www.news.com.au/national/cou...e/news-story/b9e580f9b88e98a7722997852921ba8e

I wonder if Sarah has visited her father in jail?

If BR had tried for bail and got it, would he still been able to speak to his daughter?
 
Generally you don’t have contact between the accused and prosecution witnesses and bail conditions will say don’t contact witnesses or engage in activity that can be considered unreasonable interference,” Mr Boas said.

But in this case there is nothing to stop Sarah from communicating with her father or visiting him in jail and nothing to prevent her from discussing the case with him.”

What will Sarah Ristevski say in the witness box?

I wonder if Sarah has visited her father in jail?

If BR had tried for bail and got it, would he still been able to speak to his daughter?

Yes, I think so. I think that that would be an unreasonable restriction on father/child relationship. There is nothing that they could talk about now, that they could not before he was arrested. He is not a threat to her.
 
EFAS

Melbourne Magistrates' Court
Case No
H13399711
Hearing Date/Time Monday, 16 July 2018 10:00 AM
Video Link Direction for this Hearing No
Prosecuting Agency Victoria Police - Missing Persons Squad
Informant Ryan, T (36019)
Prosecutor Representative Not Represented
Accused Ristevski, Borce
Accused Representative Not Represented
Hearing Type Committal
Plea
Court Room
0
 
I know this is a little bit different, but not so different considering what Mr Boas had to say about family privilege in testifying. But it has set a precedent in Australia. A precedent that all courts can now follow, if they wish.

In 2011, the High Court overturned a decision that a wife could claim spousal privilege and keep quiet in court about things she knew about her husband with regard to a crime he had committed. This particular wife was then compelled to speak, or face contempt charges.


Professor Bates says each privileged relationship has to be judged individually.
"The argument in favour of [spousal privilege] is that marital communications are such an important part of marriage that they should be protected," he said.

"It may be that the policy view now is that there are some things that are more important than the protection of marital communications - serious criminal offences.
Court overturns wife's right to silence

Or she could simply do a ‘Bondy’ and suffer memory loss saying 'I don't know'', ''I just can't remember'' and ''I don't recall''.

(Australia's corporate fraudster Alan Bond was practising the art of courtroom memory loss at his bankruptcy hearing).
 
Generally you don’t have contact between the accused and prosecution witnesses and bail conditions will say don’t contact witnesses or engage in activity that can be considered unreasonable interference,” Mr Boas said.

But in this case there is nothing to stop Sarah from communicating with her father or visiting him in jail and nothing to prevent her from discussing the case with him.”

What will Sarah Ristevski say in the witness box?

I wonder if Sarah has visited her father in jail?

If BR had tried for bail and got it, would he still been able to speak to his daughter?

The cops might have convinced her to be wired for sound. Ya never know what our boyz in blue are up to.
Don’tcha love their tactics! Hey they got Ol’ Rick Thorburn didn’t they.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
1,517
Total visitors
1,643

Forum statistics

Threads
589,181
Messages
17,915,215
Members
227,746
Latest member
nmdigital
Back
Top