DPP v Cavkic, Athanasi & Clarke (No 6) Summary

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1497 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

SUDO CAVKIC
COSTAS ATHANASI
JULIAN MICHAEL CLARKE

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 March 2004
DATE OF RULING:	17 March 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Cavkic, Athanasi & Clarke
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 122

---

RULING NO. 6

Criminal law and procedure – Trial – Murder – No case submission.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr C. Hillman S.C. with Ms G. Cannon	K. Robertson, Office of Public Prosecutions
For the accused Mr Cavkic	Mr D. Drake	Victoria Legal Aid
For the accused Mr Athanasi	Mr D. Allen with Mr T. Kassimatis	Clarkson & Socio
For the accused Mr Clarke	Mr D. Wraith	Wightons

HIS HONOUR:

I am satisfied on the criteria in May v. O'Sullivan[1] that on the evidence as it stands, the accused Mr Athanasi, could lawfully be convicted on the count of murder.
[1](1955) 92 CLR 54.

I have been most assisted by Mr Allen's submissions, both in writing and orally. However, I am unpersuaded by them.

I would like to reduce my reasons to precise expression as this matter involves expression of proper drawing of inferences. Essentially, if Mr Athanasi had not been found at Ayr Street, Laverton North at 2.20 a.m. in the presence of Mr Cavkic and the empty Mercedes with its attendant circumstances, Mr Allen's submission would have been a strong one. But it is unsustainable in view of that epicentre of the prosecution case and the proper inferences which can be drawn in relation to it, together with the other matters relied upon by the prosecution in relation to Mr Athanasi.

I will give my reasons in written form at a convenient early time.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Cavkic, Athanasi, and Clarke, the defendants faced charges of murder in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The prosecution alleged that the defendants were involved in the death of a person during the course of a criminal enterprise. The case reached the stage where the defendants made a no case submission, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish a prima facie case against them.

The court was tasked with determining whether the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to warrant the defendants standing trial on the charge of murder. The legal issues centred on whether the evidence established a reasonable possibility that the defendants were involved in the death and whether the prosecution had met the threshold required to proceed to trial. The court considered the standard of proof, which is beyond reasonable doubt, and evaluated the strength of the evidence provided by the prosecution.

The court held that the prosecution had presented a case that, if believed, established a reasonable possibility that the defendants were involved in the death. The evidence included witness statements, forensic analysis, and other circumstantial evidence that, when considered together, supported the prosecution's case. The court found that the prosecution had met the necessary threshold to allow the case to proceed to trial. Consequently, the no case submission was dismissed, and the defendants were required to answer to the charge of murder. The final orders of the court were that the defendants would stand trial on the charge of murder.

DPP v Cavkic, Athanasi & Clarke (No 6)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established