R v Afu; R v Caleo

Representations of the late Peter William Robert Henderson (statement 8 December 1989)

1. Mr Peter Henderson is deceased and the Crown seeks to adduce certain representations contained in a statement he made on 8 December 1989.
2. The Crown seeks to adduce evidence of the following in [5] and [7] of the statement respectively: "Michael (Dr Chye) also told me that his brother-in-law's cheque [Mr Caleo's cheque] for the deposit on the Blakehurst property had bounced … Michael also told me that he was owed a sum of about $5000 cash from his brother-in-law." "About three that afternoon [i.e. of 15 October 1989] Michael pulled me aside away from the other guests and said to me, 'That bastard, threatened me, he said he was going to get me'. Michael then said, 'I told him that if he tried to lay a finger on me I was going to get his children'."

Submissions

1. The Crown submitted that the evidence was admissible pursuant to s 65(2). The Crown referred to evidence from other sources (e.g. Ms Margaret Williams) which was to the same effect, namely that Dr Chye had referred to Mr Caleo as "a bastard" and that he had said that his brother-in-law's cheque had "bounced" (e.g. Mr James Wilkinson).
2. The Crown submitted that the representations were made at a time when it was likely to be true (s 65(2)(b)). If Mr Henderson was alive he would have been able to give evidence of what Dr Chye had said to him. The Crown Prosecutor at first said that there was no need for me to be concerned with the truth of the representation, but then agreed that the jury would be asked to accept that it was the truth by reason of the fact that it was consistent with the evidence of other witnesses.
3. The Crown Prosecutor accepted that the evidence would be admissible as evidence of the truth of what Mr Henderson had asserted, namely that Dr Chye had said what Mr Henderson claims, but that it would not be evidence of the truth of what Dr Chye asserted.
4. Mr Brady SC submitted that the second passage quoted above (from [7] of the statement) was second-hand hearsay in that the jury would be asked by the Crown to accept the truth of the asserted representation made by Dr Chye to Mr Henderson. This required reliance upon Dr Chye having told the truth to Mr Henderson. He submitted that the fact that there was evidence available from other witnesses was irrelevant.
5. Mr Brady accepted for the purposes of dealing with this issue that the other witnesses would give evidence of Dr Chye making similar representations to them. He also accepted that such evidence would be available as evidence of the truth of what Dr Chye asserted. However, Mr Brady contended that the evidence that Mr Henderson had said that Dr Chye had made similar representations to him could only be used as supporting the evidence of the other witnesses if it was used as evidence of the truth of what Dr Chye had asserted to Mr Henderson.

Determination

1. The evidence of the representations made by Mr Henderson as to what Dr Chye had said to him is admissible.
2. The fact that Dr Chye said what appears in [7] is relevant to there being disharmony and angst between the parties in relation to the property transaction. This may be derived from the fact that Dr Chye made the representation to Mr Henderson as his statement asserts. It is not admissible solely as evidence of the truth of the fact said to have been asserted by Dr Chye. Moreover, the evidence that Dr Chye made the statements that Mr Henderson set out in his statement is capable of confirming the evidence of the other witnesses who are expected to say that Dr Chye made the same types of representations to them. In other words, it is more likely that he made the representations to the other witnesses if he also made similar representations to Mr Henderson.
3. No specific submission was made by Mr Brady in relation to what appears in [5] of Mr Henderson's statement but it is admissible on the same basis.

Evidence of Dr Geoffrey Thompson (statement 22 January 2015)

1. The Crown relies upon the following paragraphs of Dr Geoffrey Thompson's statement of 22 January 2015: [22] Dr Chye said Mr and Mrs Caleo were slow on the settlement and he had threatened Mr Caleo with legal action. [23] Dr Chye said, "If Caleo doesn't settle, I'm going to ruin him financially". [25] Dr Chye said that Mr Caleo said, "If you don't stop pushing, you are going to find yourself dead". [27] Dr Chye had told Dr Thompson that Mr Caleo had made death threats to him on more than one occasion and after one of these threats, Dr Chye had threatened Mr Caleo: "Well I'll get your kids killed". [42] Dr Thompson received a phone call from Mr Caleo on 17 January 1990. Amongst other thigs he told Dr Thompson that he was not happy with a Mr Graeme Peters as the executor of the estate and wanted to have him sacked. [47] In July or August 1990 Dr Thompson received a phone call from Ms Caleo. She said she had some things that she would like to talk about and asked if they could meet up sometime. He could not remember why they did not set a date at the time but his memory was that Ms Caleo said she would call back and organise a time but she never did.
2. Mr Brady did not articulate any objection to the evidence in [22]-[23], [27] or [42]. In relation to the evidence in [47], the Crown Prosecutor indicated that it was "a small piece of evidence"; she would not open on it; and that if she intended to rely upon it the issue could be resolved at the time Dr Thompson was called. Accordingly, the only objection to be determined is that relating to the evidence in [25].

Submissions

1. In relation to what appears in [25] of the statement, Mr Brady contended that for it to be admissible this has to be evidence of the truth that Mr Caleo intended to kill Dr Chye. If it was not used as evidence of the truth it had no probative value.
2. The Crown Prosecutor submitted that it was the fact that Mr Caleo made the representation by itself that had probative value as it amounted to a threat. It was not a matter of adducing evidence of the representation in order to establish its truth.

Determination

1. The Crown is not attempting to establish the truth of a fact asserted by Mr Caleo but simply that he said what Mr Henderson said that he said. It is evidence of Mr Caleo making a threat. It has probative value in that the jury could regard it as rationally affecting the assessment of the probability of the existence of a fact in issue in the proceeding, namely whether Mr Caleo solicited the murder of Dr Chye. No submission was made that the evidence should be excluded pursuant to s 135 or s 137 of the Evidence Act.
2. The evidence of the representation made by Dr Thompson in [25] of his statement is admissible.

Evidence of Ms Susan Thompson (statement 11 December 1989)

1. Ms Susan Thompson was a lawyer and the sister of Dr Geoffrey Thompson and, through him, came to be a friend of Dr Chye.
2. The Crown indicated reliance upon the majority of what appears in [5] and [7] of Ms Thompson's statement of 11 December 1989. The portions of [5] that are pressed by the Crown may be summarised as follows. Ms Thompson had dinner at Dr Chye's house at Woollahra on 3 October 1989. He told her of the "whole process" of the sale of the Blakehurst property to Mr and Ms Caleo. She assured him as to his legal standing over the sale and told him that Mr and Ms Caleo had no choice but to proceed with the purchase and, given how interested they were in money, that they stood to lose too much by not proceeding. Dr Chye received a telephone call. Ms Thompson heard him make reference to suing Mr and Ms Caleo, taking all that they had and leaving them with nothing. Later in the evening, Dr Chye told Ms Thompson that he was "scared" that he was going to lose everything he had worked so hard for because of the bridging finance that he owed. Dr Chye said that he was scared of being assaulted or murdered in his home. He explained the security system he had and that he was confident that he could not be assaulted by someone hiding in the house. He said that if they were not hiding and came to hurt him he could probably defend himself. She said that he then said that that only left being murdered and that he had gone through a lot of feelings about that in the last few weeks.
3. The Crown also pressed for the admissibility of what appears in [7] which may be summarised: Dr Chye also told Ms Thompson on the occasion of the dinner on 3 October 1989 that he had changed his will and had decided that Ms Caleo was no longer a part of his family. He said he had written her out of the will.

Submissions

1. Mr Brady specifically objected to the comment by Ms Thompson to Dr Chye that Mr and Ms Caleo had no choice but to proceed with the purchase etcetera. It was simply an expression of her opinion.
2. Mr Brady also referred to the representations said by Ms Thompson to have been made by Dr Chye about being "scared of being assaulted or murdered" and the like. He accepted that they may be admissible pursuant to s 66A but submitted they should be excluded pursuant to s 137 "because there is nothing … that points to any direct fear in relation to Mr Caleo". The unfair prejudice was that the jury may reason from the fact that Dr Chye made such a generalised statement and from the fact that he was subsequently murdered that "it must have been Mr Caleo". Nothing in this evidence pointed to Dr Chye being in fear of Mr Caleo.
3. As to the content of [7] that the Crown seeks to rely upon, Mr Brady simply submitted that "if the Crown want to lead it and show there is some relevance, then I don't have a difficulty with it".
4. The Crown Prosecutor submitted, in effect, that the evidence in [5] must be seen in the context of Dr Chye in this period of time expressing concern over the problems with the property transaction with Mr and Ms Caleo; his stated intention to sue them; and the threat Dr Thompson will give evidence about, Dr Chye having said that Mr Caleo threatened, "If you don't stop pushing, you are going to find yourself dead" (which I have held is admissible).

Determination

1. The comments made by Ms Thompson which amounted to an expression of her opinion about the progress of the property transaction between Dr Chye and Mr and Ms Caleo are not relevant and therefore not admissible.
2. Otherwise as to the content of [5] of Mr Thompson's statement that is pressed by the Crown, I am satisfied that it is admissible. I have held that evidence of Dr Thompson that Dr Chye said he had been threatened with death by Mr Caleo is admissible. Evidence that Dr Chye expressed fear to Ms Thompson of being assaulted or murdered supports Dr Thompson's evidence in that respect.

Evidence of Ms Denise Gardner (statement 27 January 2015)

1. Ms Gardner was the wife of Dr Thompson. The Crown specifically pressed for the admission of the following evidence: [13] That Mr Caleo had a "squeaky voice". (This evidence tends to confirm a description by Mr Joseph Naliva of a man said by the Crown to be Mr Caleo.) [19] Dr Chye said that he had spoken to Mr and Ms Caleo about buying the Blakehurst property and told them not to buy it if they could not afford it because he needed the property to sell because of the bridging finance he had taken out in relation to his new home at Woollahra. [21] Dr Chye said that Mr and Ms Caleo wanted to cancel the contract to purchase the Blakehurst property and wanted to get their deposit back. Dr Chye said that he would not give their deposit back and they were upset because they were family and Dr Chye was treating it as a legally binding contract. [22] Dr Chye said that he was receiving threats from Mr Caleo over the sale of the Blakehurst property. He said they began with Dr Chye being told he would be cut off from seeing the children (presumably Mr and Ms Caleo's children) to eventually threatening Dr Chye's life. Dr Chye spoke of these threats happening over a period of time. Dr Chye expressed the thought that they were, initially, just idle threats. Dr Chye said that Mr Caleo had said that if the sale of the property went through it would be to his and Ms Caleo's financial ruin. Nonetheless, Dr Chye said he was going to make the sale go through, otherwise it would be his financial ruin. [23] Ms Gardner could not remember the words Dr Chye said were used by Mr Caleo to threaten Dr Chye but remembered that they were made more than once and they increased in time and consequence, culminating in the threat of death. [24] In one of these conversations with Dr Chye about threats, Dr Chye said that he had made counter threats to Mr Caleo. However, Dr Chye made light of this and said he had no intention of doing anything. Dr Chye said that he was not going to back down and give in to Mr Caleo. [31] Dr Thompson and Ms Gardner paid for Dr Chye's internment and there was no family present. They picked out the plot for his ashes and paid for this. [34-35] The day before the murder of Ms Caleo, Ms Gardner was made aware that police were offering an "amnesty" for anyone with information about Dr Chye's murder.

Submissions

1. Mr Brady objected to the evidence in [21] that Dr Chye had said that "they were upset because they were family and [Dr Chye] was treating it as a legally binding contract". It was submitted that for this to be admissible it would have to be evidence of the truth of the fact asserted and it could not be. The same submission was made with respect of [22]-[24].
2. Objection was also taken to [31] and [34]-[35] pursuant to s 137.

Determination

1. The evidence in [21] to which objection was taken is admissible on the basis that the fact that Dr Chye said this (aside from the truth of it) is relevant to the overall disharmony and angst between Dr Chye and Mr and Mrs Caleo in relation to the property transaction.
2. Evidence of Dr Chye's assertions that threats were being made by Mr Caleo and vice versa ([22]-[24]) are relevant on the same basis and generally. It is not evidence as to the truth of the assertions by Mr Caleo, as Mr Brady seemed to contend, but simply of the fact that such things were said by Mr Caleo.
3. The evidence in [31] is of marginal significance in that it tends to confirm the disharmony between Dr Chye and Mr and Ms Caleo in the time leading up to Dr Chye's death. I do not see any unfair prejudice so it is admissible.
4. The evidence in [34]-[35] is admissible (with the removal of the sentence commencing "I felt relieved" and of the words "In my mind" that the Crown Prosecutor said she would not adduce). The balance is relevant, capable of confirmation in other evidence I would expect, and accordingly uncontroversial. Again, I do not see any unfair prejudice arising.

Evidence of Mr James Wilkinson (statement 13 April 1990)

1. Mr Wilkinson was a friend of Dr Chye and through him he had met Mr and Ms Caleo. He was aware of the purchase by Dr Chye of the Blakehurst property and the subsequent sale of part of it to Mr and Ms Caleo.
2. Mr Brady objected to the following portions of Mr Wilkinson's statement: [6] Problems with the sale of the Blakehurst property to Mr and Ms Caleo started when their cheque for the deposit "bounced". This caused financial problems for Dr Chye and "that's when the threats on both sides started". Dr Chye spoke of a threat he had made to take the Caleo children out of his will and on numerous occasions he said that Mr Caleo had threatened Dr Chye's life if Dr Chye proceeded with court action over his inability to settle on the purchase. [7] This paragraph contains a broad account of arguments between Dr Chye and Mr and Ms Caleo over the finalisation of the purchase of the Blakehurst property after the deposit cheque had "bounced" which was related to Mr Wilkinson by Dr Chye. [8] On 15 October 1989 (the day before Dr Chye was murdered) Dr Chye told Mr Wilkinson that he had just spoken on the telephone with Mr Caleo and that Mr Caleo had threatened his life again. Dr Chye "joked" that he had threatened to kill Mr Caleo's children. Dr Chye appeared to be in good spirits. He said he intended to proceed with legal action against Mr and Ms Caleo. He also said that a week ago he had Mr Caleo "on his knees in his surgery, pleading with [Dr Chye] not to go ahead with the law suit". (The latter is consistent with evidence expected to be given by Ms Margaret Williams who worked in Dr Chye's surgery.)

Submissions

1. Mr Brady said that the same arguments applied to this evidence as to other evidence of threats said by Dr Chye to have been made by Mr Caleo.

Determination

1. For the same reasons as I have held that evidence of other witnesses as to threats Dr Chye said had been made by Mr Caleo, this evidence is admissible.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 April 2018