Edmunds v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 31

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2023 0238
BIANNCA EDMUNDS Applicant
v
THE KING Respondent

---

JUDGES: EMERTON P, TAYLOR JA and KIDD AJA
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 27 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11 March 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2025] VSCA 31
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: DPP v Edmunds (Supreme Court of Victoria, Lasry J, 17 December 2022) (Conviction); DPP v Edmunds (Ruling No 3) [2022] VSC 327R (Lasry J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Murder – Applicant found guilty following trial by jury – Applicant encouraged principal offender to murder former partner – Applicant complicit in murder – Whether trial judge ought to have directed jury on self-defence – Threshold for evidential onus of self-defence – Whether evidence suggested reasonable possibility that victim’s conduct unlawful – No evidence suggesting reasonable possibility that principal offender believed it was necessary to shoot victim to protect himself from death or really serious injury – Principal offender acted in pursuit of original plan to kill – Leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Whether direction on self-defence requested by defence counsel – Direction requested – Trial judge required to give jury requested direction unless good reasons for not doing so – Good reasons for not giving direction on self-defence – Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 12, 14.

Crimes Act 1958, ss 322I, 322K, 322L, 322N; Jury Directions Act 2015, ss 12, 14.

Zecevic v DPP (1987) 162 CLR 645; R v Kear [1997] 2 VR 555; R v Rohan (a pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 429; R v Williams [2000] VSC 20; R v Yasso (2004) 10 VR 466; Anandan v The Queen [2011] VSCA 413; R v Miller [2019] SASCFC 91; Viro v The Queen (1978) 141 CLR 88; Robertson v R [2024] NSWCCA 99, considered.

---

Counsel
Applicant: Mr D Dann KC
Respondent: Mr R Gibson KC with Mr J O’Connor

Solicitors
Applicant: Victoria Legal Aid
Respondent: Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A:. INTRODUCTION

PART B:. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

PART C:. THE THIRD TRIAL EVIDENCE

(1).... Background and context

(a)          The applicant and Caposiena

(b)          The applicant and Cassidy

(c)          The parenting dispute

(2).... The plan to murder Caposiena

(3).... The text message on 12 March 2016

(4).... Travelling to Caposiena’s house on the day of the murder

(5).... Eyewitness account of the murder

(6).... Causes of deaths of Caposiena and Cassidy

(7).... Examination of the crime scene

(8).... The case against the applicant

PART D:. THE RULING ON SELF-DEFENCE

(1).... Procedural history

(2).... Statutory framework

(3).... First limb of the ruling: the lawfulness of Caposiena’s conduct (s 322L)

(4).... Second limb of the ruling: subjective belief that conduct necessary (s 322K)

(5).... A variation of the second limb of the ruling: Cassidy killed in pursuit of original design

PART E:. PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS ON THIS APPLICATION

(1).... The applicant

(2).... The respondent

PART F:.. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

(1)....…

Continue reading Edmunds v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Edmunds v The King [2025] VSCA 31
Case
[2025] VSCA 31
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Edmunds v The King was heard by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant appealed against her conviction for murder, arguing that the trial judge should have directed the jury on the defence of self-defence. The applicant was found guilty of being an accomplice to the murder of Caposiena, who was the father of her child and her former partner. The principal offender, Cassidy, had shot Caposiena, with the applicant's encouragement, as part of a plan to kill him.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge should have directed the jury on the defence of self-defence and, if so, what the threshold for such a direction should be. The applicant argued that the evidence suggested a reasonable possibility that Caposiena's conduct was unlawful and that Cassidy believed it was necessary to shoot Caposiena to protect himself from death or really serious injury. The prosecution contended that there was no evidence to support these claims and that Cassidy acted in pursuit of the original plan to kill Caposiena.

The court held that the trial judge was not required to direct the jury on self-defence because there was no evidence suggesting a reasonable possibility that Caposiena's conduct was unlawful or that Cassidy believed it was necessary to shoot Caposiena to protect himself from death or really serious injury. The court found that the principal offender acted in pursuit of the original plan to kill, and there was no reasonable possibility that he believed self-defence was necessary. Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant's conviction for murder was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

The evidence from the first and second trials will only be referred to where it is relevant to, or would aid an appreciation of, the issues raised on this appeal.PART C:THE THIRD TRIAL EVIDENCE(1)Background and context (a)The applicant and Caposiena The applicant and Caposiena met in early-2012. They were engaged to marry, but their relationship ended the day before their engagement party. At the time of their separation, the applicant was pregnant. She gave birth to a boy, Alex,[3] in mid-2013. Caposiena was the father.[3]A pseudonym. Caposiena did not have any involvement with Alex for some time. In February 2013, prior to Alex’s birth, Caposiena commenced a relationship with Silvana Silva. It was not until March 2014, when Alex was nine months old, that Caposiena took steps to become involved in Alex’s life. The applicant and Caposiena had an acrimonious separation. There was significant animus between the pair. There was evidence that their relationship was punctuated by elements of family violence. The primary source of their discord, however, was the parenting dispute, which the prosecution advanced as the primary motive for the murder. We will return to this.(b)The applicant and Cassidy In December 2014, Cassidy and his wife separated. Shortly after, he commenced a relationship with the applicant. Cassidy had two daughters. Each of them gave evidence at trial. They, along with Cassidy’s mother, Maree Cassidy, lived with Cassidy and the applicant at various times. Initially, the applicant and Cassidy lived in Rochester. They moved to Shepparton in May 2015. The applicant told police that they had moved because she was being threatened by Cassidy’s ex-wife. However, one of Cassidy’s daughters gave evidence that the applicant told her that they had to leave Rochester because Caposiena had discovered the whereabouts of the applicant and her children. The applicant was worried about what Caposiena would do to her. Cassidy’s daughter said that the applicant asked her, ‘do you want to see us dead on the ground and [Alex] gone[?]’. The applicant and Cassidy married on 27 February 2016, some two weeks prior to the murder of Caposiena. There was evidence that, around that time, the pair were contemplating a move to Darwin. By all accounts, Cassidy was fond of Alex and looked after him like he was his own son.(c)The parenting dispute In November 2012, the applicant applied for a family violence intervention order against Caposiena. The applicant was pregnant with Alex at the time of the application. In July 2013, the Magistrates’ Court granted the application and made the order. Among other things, the order prohibited Caposiena from communicating with or contacting the applicant, and from going within or remaining within 100 metres of any place where the applicant lived or worked. In its practical operation, the order prevented Caposiena from spending time with Alex, who resided with the applicant. At trial, there was evidence that Caposiena was unable to have access with Alex because of the intervention order. The intervention order lapsed in July 2014.

Decision

Reasons for decision

In the circumstances of this case, the outcome of this application and appeal has not turned upon the omission of any explicit request by defence counsel for a self-defence direction. PART I:CONCLUSION For the reasons which we have given, leave to appeal is refused. ---

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.