Legal Aid Grants Funding To Alledged Triple Murderer After A Two And Half Year Battle.

''HE will rule the peoples of the world, with JUSTICE and FAIRNESS''-- Psalms 98:9

Alledged triple murderer, Massiomo (Max) Sica, has been granted funding for his choice of defense counsel by Legal Aid Queensland following a two and a half year battle into this matter.

The 41 year old man was charged with 20 child sex offences in October of 2008, and whilst on being on bail for the matters, was later charged on 30 december 2008 for the triple murder of Neelma Singh 24, Kunal Singh 18, and 12 year old Sidhi Singh whose bodies were discovered in a spa bath on 22/04/03.

Following Massino (Max) Sica's arrest into these matters Miss Kerry Smith Douglas (from Kerry Smith Douglas Solicitors) and Mr Sam Di Carlo (from Gregory Court Chambers) have worked "pro-bono" for Mr Sica, until earlier this year when Mr Di Carlo announced that he was no longer able to work on that basis. The accussed, Max Sica has since been representing himself after constanty refusing to accept LAQ's offer to provide funding on the basis that the matters be kept "in-house".

Mr Di Carlo and Howden Sagger Solicitors sought a review into Sica's funding issues on the grounds that there was conflict of interest between the parties involved, and that the communication levels had broken down to an extent that Mr Sica did not feel confident in LAQ handling the matter inhouse. Despite many applications and appeals from legal law firms for funding on behalf of Mr Sica, Legal Aid Queensland has always strongly stood their grounds on the decision made by them.

However, on Friday 16th September (just 2 days before Massimo Sica's bail application was to be heard in court), at around 4-4:30pm, Howden Sagger Solicitors recieved a call from LAQ stating that they have decided to approve funding for Mr Sica's choice of defense counsel.

Max Sica was due to attempt bail again, after several failed applications in the past, on the grounds that he had not received all the brief of evidence from the Crown and lacked facilities in prison to be able to view the digital and electronic evidence, unable to do research or make phone calls for his defense or speak to witnesses without the prying eyes of corrective services, who have in the past worked with QPS to electonically equip an inmate for information on Mr Sica. There were a number of issues that was to be dealt with in his bail application, including Mr Sica's allegation that another inmate had recently been approached by authorities to make a deal with them and act as an informant into Mr Sica (and two other inmates) matters and that they had given out information to this person about his case.

The main arguement for Max Sica's bail application was that he was self-represented for a triple murder trial which begins on January 31st next year and is likely to last more than 20 weeks.

Max Sica's bail application will not be going ahead now, as LAQ has finally agreed after two and a half years to provide funding for his choice of counsel, hence there being no proper grounds for the application to be heard.

It is likely that Mr Sica will be represented officially by Mr Sam Di Carlo and Howden Sagger Solicitors for the murder trial now.

HOW IRONIC??? -STATEMENT/ARTICLE NUMBER 4 FROM MRS MAX SICA....

CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT OFFER TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION "TO STOP MAX SICA'S BID TO OVERTURN RULING PREVENTING HIS DAUGHTER VISITING HIM IN JAIL"....

(followed by my post, there is an article published by the newspapers 2 weeks ago titled "PRISON AUTHORITIES SEEK" [to stop.....])

Hebrews:11:1-To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for. to be certain of the things we cannot see............

The Queensland Corrections Department has made an offer to withdraw their application against a judicial review lodged less than a month ago by Mr and Mrs Massimo (Max) Sica, in an attempt to overturn the ruling made by them preventing their children from visiting him for nearly 3 years in custody.

Crown Law yesterday (Friday 19/08/011) contacted the legal representatives of the Sica family and advised them that their client (Arthur Gorrie Correctional Center and the QLD Deputy Commisioners Office) wanted to revoke the decision they made for Nakiesha Carla Sica not to be able to see her father because:

Firstly-Their client could not remember writing the refusal

And secondly, (unfortunately)

They did not have any reason on file/record whatsoever for the refusal.

(Please refer to the notes and statements of Mrs Shivanjani (Shiv) Sica which shows the letter in relation to this query and the response letter from the authorities clearly stating their reasons for refusal.Records of Mrs Sica making several phone calls and demands for a decision after normal protocols weren't followed can be obtained, mainly via FOI through the INTEL system).

The offer made by Crown Law, on behalf of the QLD Corrections Department is simply:

That each party discontinue the proceedings regarding the judicial review and bear their own costs.

The spokesperson for Crown Law also stated that Mr Sica would then have visitation rights to be able to see his daughter, whilst in custody.

My name is Shivanjani (Shiv) Sica and I am the wife of a triple murder/child sex offender suspect. My husband was charged following a five and a half year investigation into one of the states/country's most infamous murders. The bodies of Neelma, Kunal and Sidhi Singh were discovered on 22/04/03 by Massimo Sica in the presence of his children and niece.

On December 30th 2008, charges were layed against QLD police's main suspect, Massimo Sica, following one of the most complex investigations in QLD'S, if not Australia's history. This was nearly 2 months prior to Mr Sica being arrested with 20 child sex offences and the matter only being investigated for only a month.( Later, as documents revealed, investigations were still ongoing several weeks after my husband was arrested with the 20 child sex offences.)

Since then, the prison authorities have denied 3 (and not one as they have specified) innocent children the right to see their father in custody, in a democratic country such as this where the rights of a person are suppossedly meant to be adhered to, and a person is meant to be assumed guilty until proven innocent by a court of law.

If you refer to the letter addressed to the the director of public prosecutions by the corrective services, you'll see the real reasons, as specified by them, into the refusal. I wonder, how suddenly, they claim that they have no record of anything... is it because they know that they have no case against my husband and I, have always known this, but never met a person/family who'd challenge them every step of the way??? Or is it because they chose to covertly listen to instructions from the QPS and now are covering up for them by taking full responsibility?

http://max-sica.blogspot.com/2011/07/above-on-right-is-letter-max-sica-sent.html

(click on above link, will take you to correspondence regarding refusal of Mr Sica seeing his children etc)

Either way, if they really cared, i might add as a simple human being, that at the very least, the corrections department could have acknowledged my stepson, and stepdaughter (and all other family members under the age of 18) who have all been denied the chance to see Max in custody..for nearly 3 years now........guess it goes to show just how much the right hand knows what the left hand is doing............or is it, as i stated before, ongoing injustice/legal politics/corruption ????

Prison authorities seek to stop Max Sica's bid to overturn ruling preventing his daughter visiting him in jail

• Tony Keim
• From:The Courier-Mail
• August 11, 201111:34AM

MAX Sica: seeking a review of ruling which prevents his daughter from visting him in prison. Source:The Courier-Mail

QUEENSLAND prison authorities have applied to "strike out" accused triple murderer Massimo "Max" Sica's application for a judicial review in a bid to overturn a ruling preventing his five-year-old daughter from visiting him in jail while he awaits trial.

The Brisbane Supreme Court was today told Queensland's Department of Corrective Services and the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre had lodged an application to throw out Sica's application.

Sica and his wife, Shivanjani Sica, lodged documents in court two weeks ago seeking a judicial review over a decision by Corrective Services and Arthur Gorrie management preventing jail-house visits by their daughter for almost two-and-a-half years.

The Courier-Mail has learned the move to strike out the application relies on the assertion the Sicas did not request the review within the time required.

Sica's mother Anna became enraged and ranted angrily as she walked from Supreme Court Number 5 moments after the matter was adjourned to a later date.

Sica is accused of killing Neelma Singh, 24, her brother Kunal, 18, and sister Sidhi, 12, more than eight years ago.

The siblings were found dead in a spa at their parents' Bridgeman Downs home on April 22, 2003.

He is also awaiting charges on unrelated sex offences.

Court documents viewed by The Courier-Mai reveal Sica and his wife, who married on December 22, 2008, want their daughter to see the accused killer in a bid to maintain their close father-daughter relationship.

Sica, in an affidavit lodged in court on Monday, said: "I have not been allowed to see my daughter (name withheld) or any of my other children since I was imprisoned on or about December 29 2008."

"When I was jailed I had made numerous verbal requests for access to see my daughter's (sic) and was advised by staff at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre (at Wacol, west of Brisbane) that I was unable to as I had been charged with sex offences."

Sica said he had the "full support" of his wife, Shivanjani, and was seeking a judicial review in the wake of legal advice he received in February.

"For the last two years and five months I have been refused access to see my daughter by (corrective services and the Arthur Gorrie officials)," Sica says in his affidavit.

"I have the full support of my wife Shivanjani ... in this matter to see my daughter in order to keep a continuing relationship with my daughter as her father."

A date has yet to be listed for the review.

On April 21, Shivanjani Sica - speaking publicly for the first time since her husband's arrest for the Singh murders - told The Courier-Mail she wanted his trials dealt with promptly.

Mrs Sica, reading from a prepared statement, said: "My husband Massimo (Max) Sica has been in custody ... charged with alleged rape and sex offences involving an underage girl and the triple murder of the Singh siblings."

"He is pleading not guilty on all charges.

"Despite Max being charged with these offences in October 2008 - prior to his arrest for murder - he is yet to face trial for the sex charges."

Mrs Sica said she, on behalf of Max, had instructed lawyers to "do everything" to bring on the trial for the sex offences as soon as possible.

"Max's family and I believe that trial for these sex related offences has been unnecessarily delayed," she said.

Lawyers for Sica earlier this month told a Supreme Court judge they believed police continue to prolong the more than eight-year investigation.

Barrister Sam Di Carlo said he could not longer afford to represent Sica on a pro bono basis - meaning for no fee.

Justice John Byrne said he had real concerns that Sica would now have to represent himself.

Mr Di Carlo complained that it would not be possible for anyone to be ready if the police kept producing new material in the case and "dropping it" on defence lawyers.

"When is the investigation going to stop? It is impossible for us to prepare a trial plan when we keep having new material given to us," Mr Di Carlo said.

Sica's murder trial is likely to begin early next year.

statement by mrs sica COMMON SENSE ARTICLE PART 2

Common Sense-Part 2......

MATHEW:6:6- But when you pray, go to your room, close the door, and
pray to your Father, who sees what you do in private,will reward
you.


I am the wife of Massimo (Max Sica) and my husband has been in
custody since 29th December, 2008. Due to legal resaons and the matter being
before the courts, I (and we as a family) have to be careful of what facts and
evidence we can give out to the general public, as arrests would follow on
charges of "OBSTURCTION OF JUSTICE" ............for speaking out the truth and
proving it with evidence.


I am the "alibi witness" who wrote the article "Common Sense". I have
sat by for many years and watched the LEGAL POLITICS involved in this case,
which is still ongoing.


On or about May 2004 (shortly after my birthday) I agreed to speak to
a police officer who was working with the lead detective and was/is the main
liasion for the Singhs. At the end of the converstaion I asked him a "common
sense" question (after he told me that the queensland police had numerous
evidence to prove that Max was responsible for the murders)- that if they had so
much evidence against him as they proclaimed, why was he not arrested and put
behind bars? To which he (the detective-name with held) stated to me that it was
only a matter of the investigations being completed before an arrest was going
to be made against Massimo Sica, which they proffessed to be in the near
future....


I was only a friend of Max's at the time, but now am his wife.
Following the five and a half year investigation (which is still ongoing) the
QPS charged my husband with the murder of the Singh siblings. This occurred 6
weeks after he was released on supreme court bail after being arrested and
charged with 20 child sex offences. The child sex investigation was only carried
out for a month. At no time did any police officer attempt to speak to any of
the many alibi witnesses involved in the matter, and despite having a doctors
report stating the child in question has an intact hymen (ie
virgin) they charged a triple murder suspect who has and is still going through
"trial by media".

If anyone has common sense they will be able to relate to the human
nature that exists in everyone of us and either/or Godly nature that exits in
us.....

The state has spent more then 20 million dollars over the course of
many years into the investiagtion of the Singh murders, and has come up with a
circumstancial case against Max Sica, who (as proved in court) was the prime
suspect within less then 18 hours of the discovery of the bodies.

Despite claiming that they have used an eliminative system, it is
clearly visible to any expert who looks at the evidence, that the QPS has used
the normative method. This case has never been about justice, but legal
politics.Do you honestly think that the authorites care whether Max is innocent?
I mean who better to blame then an ex-criminal, especially one who was involved
in the arson of a police station 10 years prior.....

The authorites continue to add to the injustice Mr
Sica faces (someone who they claim to be innocent until proven guilty in a court
of law) by trying to completely dehabilitate him and his family.
After being charged with the murders, Legal Aid Queensland, has
refused to fund anyone of Max's choice of defense, and would rather keep the
matter "inhouse" despite this case being described as the most complex and
highest profiled.
The crown recently succeeded in delisting the sex trial date
(originally set for november this year) taking away any chance of Max's
innocence being proven. They prefer to have the sex matter heard after the
murders. Might I add that nearly every lawyer we have consulted, have stated the
same thing, that in the last minute, they will drop the sex charges against Max
as the crown knows they will lose the case and civil lawsuits would follow for
assisination of character and lack of proper police investigation. (As I stated
in coomon sense article part one, a circus will be made of the judical
system.)

Today, my husband has been denied the right to choose a counsel of
his choice, and has no other choice but to represent himself, whilst in custody.
The QPS continues to use petty techniques in order to set Max up. They
have/still work in conjuction with the prison and have wired other inmates in
order to get any type of information on Max Sica. They refuse to give him
unmonitored phone lines and the chance to interview witnesses disceetly. In
other words, they want to know everything Max does and what his defense is going
to be, and it is a common known fact that Max and his family went through years
of surveillance, including listening, covert police operations, gps tracking
device, camera, etc prior to the arrests.
They have succeeded in putting one obstacle after another in our
path.
Our children have been denied their human right to see their father
in custody for nearly 3 years now, due to the sex charges. The authorites, in
response to the Crowns enquiry stated that this decision was made because Max
was a high profile sex offender/ suspect....
My battle with the Arthur Gorrie Coeectional Center and the Deputy
Commisioners Office spanned for nearly an year, despite the normal time
protols(time limits) not being adhered to.After the final refusal, the deputy
commissioner wrote that I could not make any further applications for another 12
months. At no time, even though i asked them what the next step should be for me
to take, did they ever hint of such a thing as a JUDICIAL REVIEW.
In February this year, Mr Chris Nyst from Nyst lawyers advised my
husband that this matter could be easily resolved via a judicial review. An
application for a review was submitted in court recently, and on Thursday, we
came to know that the authorites have put in a bid to have our application for a
review thrown out as according to them THE SICAS DID NOT APPLY WITHIN THE
SPECIFIED TIME FRAME. What about the numerous delays we have faced despite
proper time frames outlined in the legislation?


Do you think the authorites really care about the psychological and
emotional damage this is causing to innocent children? As a mother, I ask you
what do you do when your five yr old pampered daughter says to
you after you tell her that the police will not take kindly to her not having
her seat belt on in the car and she replies to you, "i dont care because at
least i will get to go to jail and there i will get to see my
daddy."

Or when she quietly comes up to you when u getting dressed and
asks if she can come with me to see her daddy? What do you do when you see your
daughter start praying for her dad at the age of 2 and a half with sobs at times
and then asks you why it is taking God so long to let her see her
daddy?
And as a wife you hear from the father of your child that he doesnt
even remember how his children look like anymore....


All we want and pray for is the true and real glory of christ to be
revealed in all this......FOR WHAT IS JUSTICE if it only reaches Max and not the
Singh children? At the end of the day, despite what anyone thinks or believes,
i have tested my husband and i know through christ that true justice will shine
through at the end of this battle which is yet to come.As for the sex case, the
complainant child must be virgin mary to have sex at least once or twice a
fortnight from a tender prepurbescent age of 9, over the course of 4 years
with a fully matured, above average, postpubescent 34 year old male, and still
have a fully intact hymen with no abnormalties whatsoever despite full
penetration occurring constanly, and as described by the complainant child-a
vibrator too.

Father I thank you for being in control of this war, and changing and
moving circumstances behind the scenes and for the glory of Christ out saviour
to be seen in all this. AMEN.

NEWS ARTICLE 12/08/2011

Accused triple murderer will make third bid for bail

Accused murderer Max Sica is set to apply for bail for the third time so he can better prepare to represent himself at his upcoming Supreme Court trial.

The long-awaited trial - at which he is to plead not guilty to murdering girlfriend Neelma Singh and her two younger siblings - is listed to begin in January next year.

Due to Mr Sica's inability to fund his own legal representation and his refusal of taxpayer-funded Legal Aid Queensland lawyers for his trial, Mr Sica is planning on defending himself.

The 40-year-old father of three has been on remand since his arrest in November 2008 and has been denied two previous attempts at release on bail.

The Queensland Court of Appeal has also denied Mr Sica's appeal against a Supreme Court judge's refusal to release him.

But this morning in the Brisbane Supreme Court, his lawyer Sam Di Carlo foreshadowed another bail application based on Mr Sica's problems accessing evidence in his case while in Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre.

He said Mr Sica requires all the evidence including crime scene photos, witness statements and police allegations against him in order to prepare his own defence.

He said accessing all the documents and files has been made difficult because of the prison rules and lack of facilities at the jail.

Justice John Byrne agreed a bail application "might be an application that is worthy of consideration".

Mr Di Carlo said a 24-hour curfew could be placed on Mr Sica, as well as a condition he wear an ankle bracelet which could monitor his movements.

Mr Sica was brought from jail today and told the court he should be allowed to interview witnesses in his case in an unmonitored interview room in the prison.

He also wanted access to an unmonitored internet connection to send emails and do legal research as well an unmonitored phone line and a printer and a fax to be able to correspond with witnesses in his case.

He said such things would be "my normal legal right" in order to prepare his own defence case.

But Justice Byrne said that was "quite the shopping list" reminded Mr Sica it was his choice to refuse Legal Aid lawyers and his choice to represent himself.

In making that choice there were disadvantages, he said.

Corrective Services representatives informed the court they could address some of Mr Sica's requests, but Mr Di Carlo labelled that "lip service."

"That's what they say, but it's just not so," he said.

Justice Byrne told Mr Di Carlo to put any specific complaints in writing.

Pre-trial argument regarding the murder trial is listed to begin on September 12.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NEWS ARTICLE 11/08/2011 JUDICIAL REVIEW

Accused murderer's mother storms out of court

Amelia Bentley

August 11, 2011 - 11:36AM

The mother of accused triple murderer Max Sica has stormed out of a Brisbane court screaming: "My son is innocent.

This morning, Anna Sica left Brisbane Supreme Court in tears after a court case involving her son was adjourned for the second time.

Mr Sica, accused of killing Singh siblings Neelma, Kunal and Sidhi in April 2003, has been on remand in Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre since his arrest in late 2008.

He claims he is innocent but has lost several attempts to get bail in the lead up to his trial, listed to begin in January next year in Brisbane Supreme Court.

Since his detainment, he has been prevented from seeing his three children.

However last month his legal team lodged a judicial review of that decision.

Outside court, Mr Sica's barrister Sam Di Carlo said other prisoners including sex offenders in Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre were able to see their children, but an administrative decision by the jail's manager was made preventing Mr Sica's children from visiting.

He said the judicial review lodged sought reasons for that decision, saying the restriction had damaged the bond between Mr Sica and his children, the youngest being five-years-old.

"If he's found not guilty, they've (jail management) broken the bond that will forever be irreparable to the child," he said.

"This has happened despite him being innocent until proven guilty. It's a joke."

After the judicial review case was adjourned this morning, Mrs Sica yelled out in the court room before storming out.

"My son is innocent, why can he not see his children, I want my son to see his children," she said.

"It's not fair on the babies. He has been in jail almost three years."

"These are allegations against him, the police have proved nothing."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Max Sica`s mother has every right to stand up for her son and have his fundamental rights given to him. Below this post you will find affidavits from both Max and Shiv Sica and their many requests for Max Sica to see his children. In point number 40 of Shivanjani Sica`s affidavit, you will read this.......

40. In the reply from the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Custodial Operations Scott Collins on or about 28 October 2010, I was advised that I could not make any further applications for a period of a further 12 months.

As you can see they did everything they could possibly do. These are ALLEGATIONS made against him that have not yet gone to trial even though they were first made in 2008.

Dont forget that Max Sica was on bail for these sex allegations in November 2008, two months after they decided to charge and arrest him for the Singh murders which were committed in April 2003.

http://max-sica.blogspot.com/2010_04_01_archive.html

click on the link above and you will read a post called COMMON SENSE. There will you find all the true facts that also came out in the committal phases regarding the sex allegations.

Ask yourself why they are trying so hard to stall the sex case from ever going to trial, ask yourself why he would not be permitted to see his children when he is in a correctional facility with many other prisoners who either are accused of or guilty of their crimes and still get to see their children.

Please do read the post COMMON SENSE and see if all this does make sense to you. I am not making this up as i go along, they are all actual facts.

COURIER MAIL ARTICLE DATED 28/07/11 Letter written by Max Sica to Corrective Services and their letter of response

Letter sent by Max Sica to corrective services and above is their reply

(below this post you will find both Affidavits from Max Sica and his wife. Below those you will find another post containing transcripts from THE QUEEN VS MASSIMO SICA regarding these matters.)

COURIER MAIL ARTICLE 28/07/11

ACCUSED triple murderer Massimo "Max" Sica has launched Supreme Court action is a bid to overturn a ruling by prison authorities preventing his five-year-old daughter from visiting him in jail while he awaits trial.

Sica and his wife, Shivanjani Sica, have lodged documents into court seeking a judicial review over a decision by the Queensland Department of Corrective Services and Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre preventing jail-house visits by their daughter, Nakiesha Sica, for almost two-and-a-half years.

Sica is accused of killing Neelma Singh, 24, her brother Kunal, 18, and sister Sidhi, 12, more than eight years ago.

The siblings were found dead in a spa at their parents' Bridgeman Downs home on April 22, 2003.

He is also awaiting charges on unrelated sex offences.

Court documents viewed by The Courier-Mail this morning reveal Sica and his wife want their daughter to see the accused killer in a bid to maintain their close father-daughter relationship.

Sica, in an affidavit lodged into court on Monday, said: "I have not been allowed to see my daughter Nakiesha or any of my other children (he has another daughter Brittany) since I was imprisoned on or about December 29 2008."

"When I was jailed I had made numerous verbal requests for access to see my daughter's (sic) and was advised by staff at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre (at Wacol, west of Brisbane) that I was unable to as I had been charged with sex offences."

Sica said he had the "full support" of his wife, Shivanjani, and was seeking a judicial review in the wake of legal advice he received in February this year.

"For the last two years and five months I have been refused access to see my daughter by (corrective services and the Arthur Gorrie officials," Sica says in his affidavit.

"I have the full support of my wife Shivanjani ... in this matter to see my daughter in order to keep a continuing relationship with my daughter as her father."

A date has yet to be listed for the review.

AFFIDAVIT MASSIMO SICA (regarding attempts been made to see his children)

AFFIDAVIT Name: Ace Solicitors

Filed on Behalf of the Applicants Address: 19 Devoy Street,

Ashgrove QLD 4060

Form 46 Rule 431 Phone No: 33669797

Fax No: 33669556

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY:BRISBANE

NUMBER:

First Applicant:

Massimo SICA

Second Applicant:

Shivanjani SICA

AND

First Respondent:

Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre

Second Respondent: Commissioner of Custodial operations

AFFIDAVIT

I Massimo Sica C/- Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Ipswich Road Wacol QLD states on oath:

1. I am the First Applicant in this matter.

2. My wife Shivanjani Sica is the Second Applicant in this matter and we were married on 22 December 2008 in the St Francis Anglican Parish, Nundah.

3. “Exhibit MS1” is a copy of the Marriage Certificate.

4. On 17 April 2006 my wife Shivanjani Sica and I had a daughter named Nakiesha Sica at the Matter Private Hospital in Brisbane.

5. “Exhibit MS2” is a copy of her Birth Certificate.

6. My daughter Nakiesha Sica is now five years old.

7. On or about 29 October 2008 I was charged with 20 sex offences inter alia rape and indecent dealing of a minor and remanded in custody.

8. “Exhibit MS3” is a copy of the Bench Charge Sheet.

9. On or about 14 November 2008 I was granted bail for the sex charges and released from prison.

10. “Exhibit MS5” is a copy of the Bail grant.

11. On or about 29 December 2008 I was charged with three counts of murder an imprisoned.

12. “Exhibit MS4” is a copy of the Charge Sheet.

13. I have not been granted bail for the murder charges and remain on remand at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Ipswich Road Wacol, for these charges only.

14. I have been held on remand awaiting my trials for two years and five months.

15. Prior to my arrest and detention on or about 29 December 2009, my daughter Nakiesha Sica and my other daughter Sica on fornightly visits resided with myself and my wife Shivanjani Sica as a family unit at Toorbul, which is approximately 45 minutes from Brisbane.

16. “Exhibit MS4” is a copy of the lease agreement for that property.

17. I have not been allowed to see my daughter Nakiesha Sica or any of my other children since I was imprisoned on or about December 2008.

18. When I was initially remanded I had made numerous verbal requests for access to see my daughter’s and was advised by the staff at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre that I was unable too as I had been charged with sex offences involving an underage girl and because I was pleading not guilty to the charges.

19. On or about February 2009 I was advised by another inmate who was on remand for sex charges that I could appeal the advices I had received by the staff.

20. On or about February 2009 I wrote to the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre requesting access to see my daughter’s Nakiesha and Sica.

21. “Exhibit MS5” is a copy of that letter.

22. I also sent them the mandatory form 27 to apply for access visits as per the requirements of the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre.

23. “Exhibit MS6” is a copy of the form 27.

24. On or about 25 March 2009 I received a reply to my application made on or about February 2009, refusing my request for access to see my daughter’s.

25. The refusal stated that there were no urgent or compelling reasons for me to see my daughter’s.

26. “Exhibit MS7” is a copy of that letter.

27. On or about 24 May 2011 His Honour Milton Griffin stated ................

28. “Exhibit MS8” is a copy of the Court Transcript.

29. On or about 17 May 2011 His Honour Milton Griffin stated...........................

30. “Exhibit MS9” is a copy of the Court Transcript.

31. For the last two years and five months I have been refused access to see my daughter by the First and Second Respondents.

32. I have the full support of my wife Shivanjani Sica the Second Applicant in this matter to see my daughter in order to keep a continuing relationship with my daughter as her father.

33. “Exhibit MS10” is a copy of the supporting Affidavit of Shivanjani Sica.

34. On or about February 2011, in order to pursue this matter further, I sought outside legal advice and was informed that I could bring an Application for a judicial review as this matter was unjustly decided.

Page 2

Signed: Taken by:

Sworn by Shivanjani Sica on at in the presence of:

Signed:

Deponent Solicitor

[who certifies that the affidavit was read in the presence of the deponent who seemed to understand it, and signified that that person made the affidavit. (If required: see R. 433(1)].

[who certifies that the affidavit was read in the presence of the deponent who seemed to understand it, and signified that that person made the affidavit, but was physically incapable of signing it. (If required: see R.433(2)].

AFFIDAVIT SHIVANJANI SICA (relating to attempts been made for her husband to see their daughter)

AFFIDAVIT Name: Ace Solicitors

Filed on Behalf of the Applicants Address: 19 Devoy Street,

Ashgrove QLD 4060

Form 46 Rule 431 Phone No: 33669797

Fax No: 33669556

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY:BRISBANE

NUMBER:

First Applicant:

Massimo SICA

Second Applicant:

Shivanjani SICA

AND

First Respondent:

Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre

Second Respondent: Commissioner of Custodial operations

AFFIDAVIT

I Shivanjani Sica of Stafford Heights QLD states on oath:

1. I am the Second Applicant in this matter.

2. My husband Massimo Sica and I were married on 22 December 2008 in the St Francis Anglican Parish, Nundah.

3. “Exhibit SS1” is a copy of the Marriage Certificate.

4. On 17 April 2006 my husband and I had a daughter named Nakiesha Sica at the Mata Private Hospital in Brisbane.

5. “Exhibit SS2” is a copy of her Birth Certificate.

6. My daughter Nakiesha Sica is now five years old.

7. On or about 29 October 2008 my husband was charged with 20 sex offences inter alia rape and indecent dealing of a minor and remanded in custody.

8. “Exhibit SS3” is a copy of the Bench Charge Sheet.

9. On or about 14 November 2008 my husband, the First Applicant, was granted bail for the sex charges and released from prison.

10. “Exhibit SS4” is a copy of the Bail grant.

11. On or about 29 December 2008 my husband, the First Applicant, was charged with three counts of murder an imprisoned.

12. “Exhibit SS5” is a copy of the Charge Sheet.

13. My husband, the First Applicant, has not been granted bail for the murder charges and remains on remand at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, Ipswich Road Wacol for these charges only.

14. My husband, the First Applicant has been held on remand awaiting his trials for two years and five months.

15. Before my husband, the First Applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on or about 29 December 2008 for the murder charges, my daughter Nakiesha Sica and was resided with my husband and I and my step daughter Brittany Sica would come on fortnightly visits and reside with myself and my husband, the First Applicant as a family unit at 10 Willmer Road Toorbul, which is approximately 45 minutes from Brisbane.

16. “Exhibit SS6” is a copy of the lease agreement for that property.

17. My husband, the First Applicant has not been allowed to see my daughter Nakiesha Sica or any of his other children since he was imprisoned on or about 29 December 2008.

18. On or about February 2009 my husband, the First Applicant wrote to the General Manager of the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, requesting access to visits from our daughter.

19. “Exhibit SS7” is a copy of that letter.

20. On or about 25 March 2009 my husband, the First Applicant received a reply to his application made on or about February 2009.

21. That letter refuses to allow our daughter to see my husband, the First Applicant. The refusal stated that there were no urgent or compelling reasons for my husband, the First Applicant to see our daughter.

22. “Exhibit SS8” is a copy of that letter.

23. On or about ...........June/July 2010 I instructed our solicitor Sammit Seth of Seth Lawyers to contact the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre in relation to my husband, the First Applicants refusal to have access visits from our daughter.

24. “Exhibit SS9” is a copy of.............................

25. On or about...........our solicitor Samit Seth of Seth Lawyers advised me that I he had spoken to someone from the Deputy Commissioner of Custodial Operations office and was advised to tell me to make an application via another form 27 back to the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, as the First Applicant could not apply for our daughters to have visitation access.

26. “Exhibit SS10” is a copy of the Form 27.

27. On or about 28 June 2010, I wrote to Greg Howden, the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre to request access for our daughter to see her father, the First Applicant.

28. “Exhibit SS11” is a copy of that letter.

29. Attached to my application form 27 was a hand written letter from myself to the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, which was later forwarded to the Deputy Commissioners Office for a review of the decision. This letter has not

been returned, despite numerous requests by me for this Application, for record purposes.

30. On or about 14 July 2010, I received a reply from Greg Howden, the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre, refusing access for our daughter to visit the First Applicant, her father.

31. “Exhibit SS12” is a copy of that letter.

32. On or about 14 July 2010, I wrote to the Queensland Government Corrective services Commissioner of Custodial Operations in order to appeal the decision of the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Centre.

33. “Exhibit SS13” is a copy of that letter.

34. On or about 28 October 2010, I received a reply from Scott Collins, the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Custodial Operations, affirming the decision made by Greg Howden of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre not to allow our daughter to see her father, the First Applicant.

35. “Exhibit SS14” is a copy of that letter.

36. The operational standards of the Correction Centre require a maximum time for relying of two weeks.

37. “Exhibit SS15” is a copy of .......................

38. Despite the operational standard requirements, it took the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre 4 weeks to reply to my request.

39. Despite the operational standard requirements, it took the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Custodial Operations 3 months to reply to my request.

40. In the reply from the Acting Deputy Commissioner of Custodial Operations Scott Collins on or about 28 October 2010, I was advised that I could not make any further applications for a period of a further 12 months.

41. Also in this reply I was never informed of my future available options/avenues in relation to an appeals process, judicially or otherwise which I now realise I was entitled too.

42. On or about......................I contacted the Commissioners office and the General Manager of Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre requesting all records of contact and correspondence between myself and them, pertaining to all of my contact and correspondence with the Departments.

43. On or about.....................I received a reply from..........................in relation to my requests for correspondence and contact with the Departments and I did not receive all the information I requested.

44. “Exhibit SS15” is a copy of .......................

45. On or about February 2011 my husband, the First Applicant advised me after speaking with Christ Nyst from Nyst Lawyers, that we can appeal the matter via judicial review.

46. At no time has anyone from any Department or Welfare Agency contacted me in order to seek a proper review into our daughters mental or psychological

development and health in order to correctly assess the Applications made by myself and my husband, the First Applicant for our daughter to have visitation access with her father, the First Applicant.

47. At no stage has anyone ever sat down with myself or Nakiesha Sica to make any enquiries or interviews.

48. I have sat by and watched for two and a half years the injustice that our daughter is and has continued to face as she wants to see her father.

49. Every week that I visit my husband, the First Applicant, my daughter constantly asks to come with me to see her dad and I have to tell her no.

50. Our daughter prays and cries for her father on a daily basis and does not understand why she is not allowed to visit with her dad when I go. Our daughter is also aware that other children are allowed to visit their parents who are in custody.

51. I believe that evidence of this that relates to our daughter can be obtained through Intel (prison phone records) as the First Applicant makes at least 10 calls a day to the residence of Carlo Sica, myself and our daughter.

Page 3

Signed: Taken by:

Sworn by Shivanjani Sica on at in the presence of:

Signed:

Deponent Solicitor

[who certifies that the affidavit was read in the presence of the deponent who seemed to understand it, and signified that that person made the affidavit. (If required: see R. 433(1)].

[who certifies that the affidavit was read in the presence of the deponent who seemed to understand it, and signified that that person made the affidavit, but was physically incapable of signing it. (If required: see R.433(2)].

THE QUEEN VS MASSIMO SICA TRANSCRIPTS

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE GRIFFIN SC

THE QUEEN

v.

MASSIMO SICA

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/05/2011

..DAY 1

MR SMITH: Page 1, Massimo Sica. Your Honour, if it pleases

the Court, my name is Smith, initials S M, solicitor with the

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I appear for

the Crown.

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR SMITH: Your Honour, I haven't heard either from

Mr Di Carlo or Ms Douglas recently, so I don't know whether

either of them are planning on turning up. However, I note

the accused's mother's in the back of the courtroom, so

perhaps if the matter could be stood down to allow other

matters to proceed first and we see if Mr Di Carlo arrives.

HER HONOUR: Was Mr Di Carlo informed that the matter was to

be mentioned today?

MR SMITH: Well, not directly, your Honour, but he was given

leave to withdraw at one of the previous mentions. On the

last occasion, Ms Douglas, from Douglas Law, asked to be

placed on the record and was present when the matter was then

duly dealt with and listed for mention today. The purpose of

today's mention, I should add, was really to update the Court

in relation to the progress of the matters pending before the

Supreme Court.

HER HONOUR: Are there matters pending before the Supreme

Court?

MR SMITH: Yes, there are, and they were to have been

mentioned last Friday.

HER HONOUR: What matters are those?

MR SMITH: The three - there is one indictment containing

three counts of murder. That matter was to have been-----

HER HONOUR: Is it intended that these matters proceed after

the trial-----

MR SMITH: Yes.

HER HONOUR: -----is dealt with in the Supreme Court?

MR SMITH: Yes, that is the case, and both-----

HER HONOUR: Well, I will stand the matter down for a short

time.

MR SMITH: Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: It was listed at 9.30 this morning, was it?

MR SMITH: Yes, it was, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes, very well. Well, we will see whether

Ms Douglas deigns to make an appearance. I will take the next

matter.

MATTER STOOD DOWN

HER HONOUR: Before I adjourn, whilst you are making

inquiries, perhaps I can deal with the matter of Sica. Yes,

the matter of Sica?

MR SMITH: Yes, your Honour. For the record, your Honour, my

name is Smith, initials SM, solicitor with the Director of

Public Prosecutions. I appear for the Crown.

MS DOUGLAS: Good morning, your Honour. For the record, Kerry

Douglas from Kerry Smith Douglas Lawyers. I appear for

Mr Sica.

I apologise for being late this morning. It was my

understanding that a barrister would be present but I got a

telephone call at 10 o'clock saying that Legal Aid has not yet

been approved, so he is not-----

HER HONOUR: Yes, very well. Well, you are here now. Let's

deal with the matter.

MS DOUGLAS: Righto. Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, I

was going to request that this matter be brought on before the

murders simply because my client's instructed that he hasn't

been able to see his five-year-old daughter for two and a half

years because they are sex offences and the Arthur Gorrie

Correctional Centre won't allow him to see his daughter. He

hasn't - as I say, he hasn't seen the child for two and a half

years, so I would like to bring this matter on ASAP and

even-----

HER HONOUR: But surely in cases where there are allegations

of sexual misconduct, and so on, there can be contact between

the parent and child that is supervised in a custodial

situation?

MS DOUGLAS: The Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre won't allow

the mother to bring the daughter into the prison.

HER HONOUR: What, Mr Smith, do you say is the purpose of

having these matters dealt with after the murder trial?

MR SMITH: Your Honour, firstly, the Crown and defence in

relation to both sets of matters have always agreed that that

would be the position-----

HER HONOUR: Yes, but that apparently is now not the case.

MR SMITH: Mmm. Secondly, the convention, as I have always

understood it, is that the Supreme Court matters ought to

proceed first, particularly in light of the seriousness of the

allegations in relation to those matters.

A third issue, which is related, of course, concerns custody.

The accused is formally remanded in relation to both sets of

charges. The history behind that, if I can just briefly

relate to you, was that the accused was arrested in relation

to these matters before he was arrested in relation to the

murders. He was initially remanded in custody in relation to

these murders and was then given Supreme Court bail. Whilst

he was on Supreme Court bail for those matters he was then

arrested for the murders-----

HER HONOUR: Is he in custody in relation to these matters?

MR SMITH: He is now, yes, and he has been remanded in custody

continuously in relation to both sets of charges since - I

think it was the 9th or the 5th of February 2009.

HER HONOUR: Was that an order made by the Supreme Court?

MR SMITH: No. He was - he applied unsuccessfully for bail in

relation to the murders as well, but at a mention in the

Magistrates Court in relation to these matters, when they were

still in the committal process, the Court file was endorsed

that he was also remanded in custody in relation to these

charges.

Unfortunately, I can't detail any further what - how that

actually came to be, but from that point on, the Corrective

Services people have always treated the accused as having been

formally remanded in relation to both sets of charges.

When the indictment was presented in this Court before her

Honour the Chief Judge, her Honour formally made an order

remanding the accused in relation to these charges as well.

HER HONOUR: Well, then, is there not likely to be

publicity-----

MR SMITH: Well, that's-----

HER HONOUR: -----about these matters should they come on

before the trial, and is there then not likely to be a

question as to whether he has received pretrial publicity in

relation to other matters that may affect the fairness of the

murder trial?

MR SMITH: And that was always the concern behind the

agreement or arrangement between the parties.

HER HONOUR: Do you abandon that submission now, Ms Douglas?

MS DOUGLAS: No, no, your Honour, I don't, and-----

HER HONOUR: That's the difficulty that you have, you see, and

that your client faces, I think.

MS DOUGLAS: It was my understanding that he got bail on these

charges, on the rape charges, and it was subsequent to getting

bail he was then charged with the murder charges.

My client is clearly innocent of these rape charges, and I

won't go into-----

HER HONOUR: Well, I don't know whether anyone can say that.

That's really going to be not even the province of a jury.

Juries only say that the person is not guilty, which mean the

prosecution hasn't proven its case. So it is no use using

hyperbole with me.

MS DOUGLAS: No, well, I think even you, your Honour, after

hearing-----

HER HONOUR: Even me? What do you mean by that, Ms Douglas?

MS DOUGLAS: Well, I mean that any Judge, any Judge would

understand that when a person if - being charged with rape and

is still a virgin is going to get off the rape charges, and he

has been charged with 20 of them. The purpose of my-----

HER HONOUR: You might tell me is it penile rape, is it rape

by digital penetration, or penetration by something other than

a penis?

MS DOUGLAS: It was supposed to be a full penetration by

penis, your Honour, and she is still a virgin. So that's why

I would like to get these matters on and heard quickly, and

then he will be found not guilty on those and then we can

start attacking the murder trial.

HER HONOUR: Yes, well, there you are, Ms Douglas, there is

the problem.

MS DOUGLAS: What-----

HER HONOUR: You used the phrase "he will be found not

guilty". No-one can ever say that until the verdict is

announced. I am against you on that. I think in the

circumstances these matters should proceed after the murder

trial. Should there then be a mention date of these matters?

When is the murder trial set to commence? Is there a date?

MR SMITH: No, there is not, your Honour. The murder

indictment is to be mentioned this Friday-----

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MR SMITH: -----in the Supreme Court. It is anticipated that

pretrial legal argument may be listed in the second half of

this year with a trial perhaps to be in the first half of next

year. That's about as clear as I can really make the position

in relation to future listing of that matter. The purpose of

these charges being listed for mention today, as I indicated

earlier, was to simply update the Court in relation to the

progress of the listing on the Supreme Court matters.

So if your Honour was minded to list these matters at some

future stage after the Supreme Court matter is listed again

this Friday.

HER HONOUR: Yes, well, perhaps it should be. I will mention

the matter before me next week at 9.30.

MS DOUGLAS: I will be on - I will be on time, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: 24th of May. So at this stage my inclination is

that these matters should proceed after the murder trial but I

will have further information by next Wednesday. I will

adjourn the matter until then.

MS DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honour.

MR SMITH: Thank you, your Honour.

MS DOUGLAS: May I be excused?

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MS DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Adjourn the Court, please.

THE COURT ADJOURNED AT 10.27 A.M.

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE GRIFFIN SC

THE QUEEN

v.

MASSIMO SICA

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/05/2011

..DAY 1

MR MILES: Your Honour‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Mr Miles?

MR MILES: ‑‑‑‑‑your Honour, if it pleases the Court, my name is Miles, initials J M, I seek leave to appear for the Director's Office.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS RADFORD: Good morning, your Honour, if it pleases the Court, my name is Radford, initials A A, legal officer with Legal Aid Queensland, and I appear on legally-aided matters this morning.

MR MILES: Is your Honour minded to hear some matters out of turn, this morning?

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR MILES: Would your Honour take the matter of Massimo Sica, it's on page 3 of the mentions list?

MR FULLER: Your Honour, my name is Fuller, initials T A, I appear instructed by the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Good morning, your Honour, for the record, Kerry Smith-Douglas, I appear for Massimo Sica in relation to the sexual matters and we're making a submission in relation to why the sexual matter should go - be heard before the - the murders.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. And you have written submissions?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well, I have your Honour but I've written on them - I was going to read them to you.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, very well.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: The first submission is‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: I - I take it - I should hear from the Crown. Do you oppose this course, Mr Fuller?

MR FULLER: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Is there anything I should know about? I was told last week that there was a Supreme Court trial.

MR FULLER: There is, your Honour. The matter of‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Do you mind if Mr Fuller tells me about the history of the matter up until this morning, Ms Douglas?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I beg your pardon, your Honour? Sorry, I missed it.

HIS HONOUR: Do you mind - it's important to listen. Is it - would you mind if Mr Fuller tells me about the history of the matter up until this morning?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: You do?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I - I'll be touching on it.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, well I'm going to ask Mr Fuller to tell me about it. What's happened so far?

MR FULLER: All right. Your Honour, the Supreme Court matters have now been listed in January of next year for trial. The - his Honour Justice Byrne has been appointed to have oversight of those matters. There's an anticipation of some pretrial applications leading up to the commencement of the trial. And some dates have been set aside for that.

HIS HONOUR: How long is the trial expected to take?

MR FULLER: Your Honour, the estimate is up to 15 weeks.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. And do you agree with that estimate, Ms Douglas?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: No, your Honour. We believe it will take at least six months.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you. Was that mentioned to Justice Byrne?

MR FULLER: Your Honour, the matter was listed by Justice Martin. The Crown estimate was 10 to 15 weeks.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR FULLER: And the defence estimate is obviously of some greater period of time. But the matter has been listed to commence in January.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR FULLER: On that basis.

HIS HONOUR: And Justice Martin was told it would be six months by the defence?

MR FULLER: I understand Mr Di Carlo appeared and suggested the trial may make up to 20 weeks.

HIS HONOUR: That's five months in my calculations.

MR FULLER: Yes.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: If‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: It's - it's - it's lengthened another month since last Friday, has it?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: It was my understanding - I wasn't in Court on that occasion, your Honour, but it was my understanding that Mr Di Carlo has made a submission to Legal Aid that will take six months to even read the material. I think the - the committal took - how long did the committal take?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ninety-four days.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: What's that?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Ninety-four days.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Ninety-four days - the committal took 94 days, your Honour. So what's that in months?

HIS HONOUR: I don't know whether it truly can be said that there is always relativity between a committal and a trial. Often issues will be refined at trial. And often those matters that are explored at committal will often be, by competent counsel, abandoned at trial. But, anyway, I understand what you say about the length of the committal.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: And what we say, your Honour, is that - that‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: What you submit.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes, what we submit, your Honour, is that the - that unless the District Court matter is heard first, it will unfairly prejudice the Supreme Court matter, is baseless as the District Court proceedings will not create an irredeemable prejudice on the Supreme Court trial, and I refer to the case of Dupas and the Queen [2010] High Court Appeal, and I have a copy of that case for you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I have given a copy to my friend.

HIS HONOUR: Would be able to, if you can‑‑‑‑‑

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑‑‑‑particularise the prejudice.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Particularise the what, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR: The prejudice that you say will occur‑‑‑‑‑

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Right.

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑‑‑‑if these District Court matters are not heard before the Supreme Court trial.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well, the‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: And then secondly, deal with what prejudice you accept would occur, should the matters occur the other way around.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well, it was clearly spelt out in the case of Dupas, where the Full Court of the High Court of Australia stated that extensive adverse pretrial publicity was capable of being relieved against the trial Judge in the conduct of the trial, by thorough and appropriate directions to the jury. We say, that because it has had such extensive media coverage and, I point out‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: It, what do you mean by it?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: It's - the - the case, Massimo Sica's pretrial publicity has had‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: In relation to what?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: A - in relation to the name Massimo Sica has had four million‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: The publicity in relation to what matter?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: The murders, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: He has had four million hits. Under the name of Max Sica he has had 7.5 million hits, and under the Singh murders he's had 1.8 million hits. So, there's also been - compared to 252,000 hits when - with the words Sica and rape. The Brisbane Times and Courier Mail websites have combined a total of 140 articles that featured Massimo Sica, and the vast majority of these articles and hits relate to the Singh triple murder case.

As the District Court is referred to in most of the articles, other unrelated matters. It's my submission that due to the extreme amount of exposure the Supreme Court matter has been subject of, it is undoubtedly tainted to some extent, through grossly excessive media coverage. We say that the District Court matter should go first, simply because he was charged with the rapes before the murders, he was given bail for the rapes and not the murders‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: So, in the event that he was tried and acquitted in the District Court, it would mean that he would still be in custody until after the hearing of the murder trial in any event.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Correct, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mmm.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: It's been, I think and I‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Might you - might you argue that his acquittal on the rape charges might be beneficial and be able to be used in the murder trial, or is it entirely irrelevant and distinct?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I think it's entirely distinct, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mmm.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Simply because the matter of hits that has been on the - the internet.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that might then be against you in your argument that the rape trial should go first.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well, the rape trial, as my friend indicated, isn't coming up till the - January 2012. He's been in custody for two and a half years. He's not able‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: In - in the murder trial?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes. Yes.

HIS HONOUR: The murder trial is being heard in January of 2012.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: And I think this matter was set down for November, I think, of this year. I'll stand corrected.

HIS HONOUR: Is there any issue about the proximity of the District Court trials, I'll call them, to the Supreme Court trial, in terms of when it could be listed. For example, would you say that there is any prejudice that might arise if the trial was heard within two or three months of the murder trial, and prior to it.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes, I'd like it to be heard prior to it, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand that's your submission. But the difficulty at the moment is the list, I think, and when the trial could be heard - properly heard. How long will it take?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I think, it wouldn't take any more than two weeks, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Just a moment. Yes. The trial couldn't be heard before November, I am told now by the Listing Clerk. So that means that this trial would be heard in November‑‑‑‑‑

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑‑‑‑and the murder trial heard in January and therefore, there is an obvious issue about the proximity between the two. Do you understand what I'm saying?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes, well they've got to be heard at some stage and I believe that this matter was set down to be heard in November. Now we've got the murder date last week, which is in January 2012. My submission is that the rape should be put to bed - put aside, and then let the murder go ahead because‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Explain why?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well, because he's not guilty, your Honour. We submit, he's not guilty and that's why we're‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Well I suppose that's evident by his plea. Has he been required to plead to the indictment yet?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes. I - yes, he has, your Honour. It's‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: A plea's been entered. Is that so, Mr Fuller? You don't know.

MR FULLER: Your Honour, I'm not confident that that occurred before the prerecording. The history of the matter, a prerecording occurred in October of last year. It went for about a week.

HIS HONOUR: A prerecording for a week?

MR FULLER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Well, it sounds as though the trial would be at least two weeks.

MR FULLER: Indeed, your Honour. That would be, I guess‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Is that‑‑‑‑‑

MR FULLER: ‑‑‑‑‑conservative.

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑‑‑‑the prerecording of evidence which would be played to the jury, unless there's a substantial editing, would be about a week.

MR FULLER: Yes, the complainant gave evidence‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: That gives me some idea then of the length of the trial.

MR FULLER: Yes, the complainant gave evidence for about three days, your Honour, and then there's the 93A tapes. I think there are approximately four or five of those, as well.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. As a practical consequence for Mr Sica, one of the issues is that were he tried and acquitted, as you so confidently say, then he'll still be in custody. So there's no advantage to him in relation to that. There's no issue, you accept, that could be used by his acquittal, should it occur, in the District Court trial in relation to the Supreme Court murder trial. As you say, they are entirely distinct matters. So, what else do you submit about why the District Court trial should take precedence over the Supreme Court trial?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well, in - one issue, your Honour, and the most important issue, is that he hasn't been able to see his two and half - his five year old child for two and a half years. The child is growing up not knowing her father because of the sexual offences.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, that - that seems to me, an important consideration.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honour. And the Corrective Services are ignoring our request. The mother of the - the child is sitting in Court here today and that is her main concern. The child is growing up without knowing her father, or even being able to see her father on a weekly visit that the mother's allowed to. She's got to leave her child behind with the grandmother, who's also in Court.

HIS HONOUR: Why - do you know why Corrective Services have made this decision. After all, if the mother of the child is anxious to have the father see the child, the child is seen in circumstances that are‑‑‑‑‑

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: In company with the mother.

HIS HONOUR: Not only in company with the mother, but, to use a neutral phrase, supervised.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: What approaches have been made to Corrective Services by others apart from the mother, if anyone?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: The family, your Honour. The family and the prisoner.

HIS HONOUR: Not any vocal legal representation, Ms Douglas.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Your Honour, if I can just explain, the Corrective Services are a law unto the themselves. For example, in relation to the Patel matter we‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: I'm not interested in hearing about any of this - bringing another matter‑‑‑‑‑

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: All right. Okay, well they're very difficult to deal with.

HIS HONOUR: You say they're difficult to deal with.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Extremely difficult to deal with.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, all right. So, you make the issue about the - the defendant not having - not being able to see his child.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: And also the witnesses are going to start losing their memory, your Honour. Even the alibi witnesses are - are - have told me that they're starting to forget what has occurred.

HIS HONOUR: I would have thought a statement might have been taken from them.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well a statement has been‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: That's normally a way of them refreshing their memory.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: It is, your Honour. And also at the time when these alleged rapes occurred, Mr Sica's family home was under surveillance both video and audio, when these offences were supposed to have taken place. And we believe that it's important that these matters are heard first so that Justice can be done and that any prejudice that has been put upon my client in relation to media articles and these millions and millions and millions of hits on the internet should be set aside and let my client have justice and to be able to stand up a free man from these rapes and then I believe he would be getting a fairer trial in the Supreme Court for the murders.

HIS HONOUR: And what have the - what if the converse is true, that having had a trial in the District Court and he's convicted, that obviously then is true that it may affect his Supreme Court trial.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: It may - but he may have had time served by the time it's heard in the District Court. I mean it's going to be coming up to what nearly‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: I'm talking about pre-trial publicity then. You make the submission - you make the submission that by acquittal in the District Court although the charges are irrelevant because of the media publicity it may have some positive effect on his murder trial then the converse is surely true.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes, I'll agree with that, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, very well. Yes.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I'm instructed, your Honour, that the family have written to the General Manager of Corrective Services and submitted that the complainant - sorry, your Honour, I withdraw that.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: They're my submissions.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Thank you.

HIS HONOUR: I want to hear what Mr Fuller has to say. Mr Fuller?

MR FULLER: Your Honour, the primary submission is that the murder trials are the most significant of the prosecutions and of the greatest of public interest in my submission and therefore whatever safeguards can be put in place to ensure the fairness of that trial and the ultimate proceedings in the Supreme Court should be taken.

If I can deal firstly with the issue about his access to his child. Your Honour, my officer has written to Corrective Services and be advised that there is a discretion that rests in the General Manager of the Correctional Centre as to whether access can be granted to the child or not. There is a provision that requires him to review whether it's in the best interests of the child taking all of the matters into consideration as to whether the child should have access to Mr Sica.

HIS HONOUR: And has he done so by consulting the mother of the child?

MR FULLER: Your Honour, he - I've simply been advised that he has taken all of the matters into account as he is required to do and made a determination that in the circumstances that it would not be in the best interests of the child for her to have access to Mr Sica. I understand that a review can be made of his decision by writing to the Deputy Commissioner of Custodial Operations and there is a review process which is available to Mr Sica and his family if they wish to have that reviewed.

It's unclear, your Honour, whether the removal of the - or the dealing with of the sexual offences initially would result in the General Manager changing his opinion as to whether the child can have access in light of the other offences with which Mr Sica has also been charged.

Your Honour, with respect to the issue of publicity one of the issues of concern to the Crown throughout the prosecution has been leakage of any of the matters involving these completely unrelated matters with that of the murder and the press has been fairly reserved in their reporting with respect to the sexual offences.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you see, Mr Fuller, one of the matters that Ms Douglas has raised is this. Now I've discussed it with her, that although she accepts the District Court matters are unrelated and cannot in any evidentiary sense, that is the District Court matters form any basis for the way in which the trial is conducted in the Supreme Court, in a general way she submits that the acquittal of her client on the District Court charges prior to the murder trial will have some beneficial effect at least to the extent that those who are knowledgeable of and interested in the District Court offences, will have their interest extinguished by acquittal. It seems to me to follow that the converse is also true, that a conviction in the District Court matters could, although they are entirely irrelevant, even with directions from a trial Judge have the same effect of encouraging interest in the Supreme Court trial and in the allegations made against the defendant in the Supreme Court matter.

MR FULLER: Indeed, your Honour, and if I could also add to that the nature of the‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: I should say Mrs - Ms Douglas is entirely confident of the defendant's acquittal, that however - that confidence however is hers alone. It could only be effected by jury verdict.

MR FULLER: The other difficulty I can foreshadow, your Honour, is the nature of the evidence in the District Court trial would involve, as we've heard from my learned friend, some suggestion about police investigation or activity with respect to him, with respect to the Supreme Court matter and indeed‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: So there is - there will be a connection, in respect, from the committal.

MR FULLER: Well from - with respect to his defence of the charges includes this idea that there was surveillance and other things happening at the time.

HIS HONOUR: This is something Ms Douglas mentioned, is that correct, Ms Douglas?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: That's correct, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MR FULLER: And that indeed some of the talk between some of the young girls who are involved as witnesses in the trial focussed in some part on allegations against Mr Sica with respect to the murder.

HIS HONOUR: Tell me about the time of the charges, that's something that hasn't been clearly indicated. Are these charges, that is the District Court charges, charges later in time.

MR FULLER: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Before?

MR FULLER: Yes. They are perhaps not completely dated but they are historical in the nature of the complaint.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR FULLER: So in the circumstances, your Honour, the most appropriate course in my submission is for the Supreme Court matters to be heard first and that was indeed their defence position when this matter was listed for November of this year in November of last year, before her Honour the Chief Judge when Mr Di Carlo was in the matter. And that they didn't wish these matters to be dealt with at that time.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR FULLER: The only other matter‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: You might make submissions if you wish on the fact the trial - there would be real proximity between the two trials, that is, the District Court matters could not be heard until November.

MR FULLER: Indeed, your Honour, but‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: And the trial is in the Supreme Court is listed in January.

MR FULLER: Yes, your Honour, in early January. I could also indicate, not knowing which counsel is going to be in the matter, Mr Di Carlo was previously in the matter. Ms Douglas' firm does not appear for Mr Sica in the Supreme Court matters, though it appears Mr Di Carlo will and that I have no real confidence as to the length of this trial in light of some of the matters which have been raised today. Certainly with respect to alibi where no notice has been served on the Crown as to alibis in this matter.

HIS HONOUR: You accept that, Ms Douglas?

Certainly with respect to alibi where no notice has been served on the Crown as to alibis in this matter.

HIS HONOUR: You accept that, Ms Douglas?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I'm not sure, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well I'll have to accept what Mr Fuller says.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: My instructions are that - sorry, that indicates, has the discretion‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: No, we're - we're really not dealing with this matter of this aspect of it at the moment. I was just asking about‑‑‑‑‑

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: The alibi.

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑‑‑‑using alibi. Yes, thank you.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes. I - I'm of the understanding that there is an alibi and I have been told by the mother that she is the alibi, Max Sica's wife.

HIS HONOUR: And I was asking whether notice of alibi which is required under the Rules has been served on the prosecution‑‑‑‑‑

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Well‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: ‑‑‑‑‑with all the details that are required.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I'm not sure whether Mr Di Carlo had served that on the DPP.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Fuller tells me and I'll - I'll accept that that's the case, yes. Thank you, Mr Fuller.

MR FULLER: The other practical issue, because he's being represented by two different parties, is the preparation for the murder trial and his participation in that. He's participating in a District Court trial that will take perhaps into the middle of December‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR FULLER: ‑‑‑‑‑to complete.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. The trial is set down presently on the 14th of November.

MR FULLER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: That leaves a month and a little more perhaps before the Supreme Court trial.

MR FULLER: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thank you. Anything further?

MR FULLER: No thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Ms Douglas and your client?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Thank you, your Honour. Just a couple of points. The - Massimo Sica's wife has written to the Deputy Commissioner of Corrective Services and they have also refused and - her application to bring her child into the prison and they said you can't reapply for another year. Reasons - she asked why and he - well, the response was reasons that were non urgent and non compelling so my client cannot see his child because the general manager of Corrective Services has the discretion which he believes in the best interests of my client's child not to see him with his mother and or his grandmother and or extensive family. And they're a big Italian family, you know, there's - there's - they're a large group of people and they're very family orientated as the Italians are and it upsets them terribly that this - their son isn't able to see his son.

Your Honour, my friend indicated that there's been leakage. I might point out that my friend has a police - full police liaison office and there certainly hasn't been any leakage from that - our part.

Your Honour, the matter has been set down for the 14th of November and I - we submit that that date remain, we have this matter heard so my client can get justice and based on that case that was tendered earlier, the High Court case, I'll leave the decision in your capable hands. They're my submissions, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: You might answer this - who is briefed in the District Court trial?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Me.

HIS HONOUR: You're going to appear?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: It looks like it, your Honour. I can't get Legal Aid. The family don't have any money so I'm going to have to do it myself.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. And how long will the trial take?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: I think a couple of weeks, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Does that mean two?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Yes, your Honour. Well, I can't say exactly two but I would say around about two and hopefully your Honour will have it struck out - if you're hearing it or whoever's hearing it - will have it struck out due to the evidence that's going to be relied on.

HIS HONOUR: So, is there to be a pretrial application?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: No. No, your Honour. We'll go straight in.

HIS HONOUR: What do you mean by struck out?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Straight into the trial.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. What do you mean by struck out?

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: On the evidence, your Honour, the - it's my understanding that the girl is still a virgin and that she was supposed to be fully penetrated. The lies - the deceit that has been stated to the police is just outrageous and we also submit‑‑‑‑‑

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thank you for that. I don't think this is the time or the place to ventilate arguments about the trial.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Righto.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MS SMITH-DOUGLAS: Thank you.

TAKE IN JUDGMENT

DISTRICT COURT

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

JUDGE GRIFFIN SC

THE QUEEN

v.

MASSIMO SICA

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/05/2011

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for the trial of Massimo Sica in the District Court to proceed on the date listed, the 14th of November 2011.

The legal representative for the defendant has argued that a variety of factors exist which would lead to the conclusion that the trial, in fairness, should proceed. These include that her client is not guilty, although I take it that from a plea of not guilty or an intended not guilty, that will always be the case. She further submits that there is a strong case to argue, that her client is not guilty. She argues that the defendant is prejudiced in a private and family sense by the fact of his being unable to have contact with his child, that contact has been refused by the relevant prison authorities.

She has referred to substantial pretrial publicity, both in relation to this trial and a trial which has been set down to commence in the Supreme Court in January of 2012, that trial is in respect of the charge of murder.

Ms Douglas, the defendant's legal representative, expects to appear in the trial herself, and it is expected, she thinks, to last - to use her phrase - a couple of weeks. I note that the evidence which will be led at the trial, that is prerecorded evidence and section 93A material, will take approximately one week. Further to that, Ms Douglas refers to the existence of alibi evidence. That material in terms of formal notification of alibi, has not been provided to the prosecution.

It seems to me that a trial of two weeks is at least entirely possible, and perhaps somewhat longer. The trial, I note from the listings that have already been given, is listed for three weeks, and I am told in Court this morning, by the District Court listing officer who sits beside me, that no earlier trial date is available. One matter that is immediately obvious is that should the trial proceed in November, that trial will be very much proximate to the commencement of the Supreme Court trial.

Although, in the matter of Dupas v. Queen [2010] HCA 20, the Court rejected an argument about substantial pretrial publicity. In that case, that was a matter which involved a stay of proceedings. It is always the case that prejudice may arise in respect of pretrial publicity, the question is how and to what extent it may be dealt with, and how that it possible, and the directions which may be given in terms of the quality and extent of the pretrial publicity and the prejudice that may obtain in that regard.

It is indeed unfortunate that the defendant does not have contact with this child, although I am unable to say the entire - I am unable to know the entire circumstances of the requests for contact, or the decision making process and what was taken into account by the relevant prison authorities, in making the decision at which they arrived.

Ms Douglas also submits that pretrial publicity in relation to the District Court trial, although actually irrelevant in evidenciary terms to the Supreme Court matter, may have an implicit effect in this way, that an acquittal on the District Court matter or matters, may extinguish interest otherwise gathered in relation to the defendant himself, who of course faces the Supreme Court trial. In other words, it would have some minimising effect on interest that's been generated in the media about the particular defendant.

It seems to me that the converse is also true, that is to say that a conviction in the District Court may enhance interest, and is perhaps likely to increase some prejudice against the defendant. No doubt this can always be dealt with by suitable directions from a trial Judge, nonetheless, the potential is there, in my view.

Ms Douglas argues very strongly, the cause the defendant is not guilty, or indeed at least intends to plead not guilty, that this matter should be dealt with prior to the Supreme Court trial. The argument put against her by the prosecution is that in the interests of justice, the most serious matter should proceed first. I note that the District Court matter is said, although not to be one that is sometimes referred to as a historic matter, it is nonetheless one which is said to have occurred at a time prior to the alleged offence in the Supreme Court. I have taken that into account in considering these matters.

In all the circumstances, I am of a view that the Supreme Court trial should proceed first. I delist the trial in the District Court on the 14th of September. The matter will be mentioned again on the 14th of September. In the event that there are, firstly, issues to be raised from the District Court trial that relate to pretrial matters; secondly, in relation to the provision to the prosecution of alibi evidence according to the rules, the criminal practice rules; and thirdly, any other matters arising, and perhaps at that time being able to give some potential listing for the trial.

I note also that the defendant is in custody in respect of the Supreme Court trial and should he have been acquitted in respect of the District Court trial prior to the Supreme Court trial commencing, he would nonetheless remain in custody. That is another matter I have taken into consideration.

Nothing further?

MS DOUGLAS: Nothing further. That's my only matter, may I be excused.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you.

MS DOUGLAS: Thank you. Good morning, your Honour.