Erich, Ante The Queen - [1980] FCA 96

Criminal

law

- appea l aga lns t cozv lc t ion

for rrur6,cr -

submiss ion tha t ve rd lc t pe rve r se because

t h e p r o b n b i l i t l e s

i n Z u r i e s c a u s l n g d e a t h n o t i n f l i c t e d a t t i m e

when

a p p e l l a n t

i n v i c t i m ' s p r e s e n c e

subrniss lon reJected

c h a l l e n g e t o

e x e r c i s e

t r i a l

J u d g e ' s d i s c r e t i o n I n r e f u s l n c t o d i s c h a r g e

j u r y on

three

occas ions

c h a l l e n g e r e j e c t e d

subrnisslons

based on Yarlous aspects

o f

conduct

trial a l so r e Jec t ed

q u e s t i o n of

p r inc ip l e invo lved

appea l

dismiss&.

Pn te Zr i ch v .

The

Queen

No. FC 45 of 1979

Cora-c:

Blackburn,

St.John

and

Shepp2rd

JJ.

-	Date :	27th March,	1980
Canberra.

I N T3E FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CANBEmA DISTRICT REGISTRY	No. FC 45 o f 1579
GEKERAL DIVISION

On appeal from t h e Supreme C m r t of

t h e A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r i t o r y

Setween

ANTE ESICH

Appel lant

and

T 3 3

LUFEI~J

Respondent

ORDER

JUDCES

MAKING

ORDZR

Blackburn, St.John and Shepperd

JJ.

DATE OF ORDEX	:	27th March, 1980
WHERE MAD9	Canberra

THE

COUF~T CFLDERS THAT:

The a p p e a l

dlsT1

sscd.

appeal f r o -

t h e .;uprcme

Cr,urt

o f

t h e A u s t r s l i a n	C a p i % a l Territory
Between

2 i T E ERICY

Appel lant

and

put

the

jury

ought

have

been

7ccepted

tec? l l se

was

e s t a b l i s h e d

upon

b a l a n c e o f p r o b a b i l l t ~ e s

t h l t

t he

i n J u r l e s w e r e…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Erich, Ante The Queen

Details

AGLC: Erich, Ante The Queen [1980] FCA 96
Case: [1980] FCA 96
Decision Date: 25 Jun 1980

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Erich v The Queen, the appellant, Ante Erich, appealed against his conviction for murder. The primary issue before the court was whether the verdict was perverse due to the probabilities that the injuries causing death were not inflicted at the time when the appellant was in the victim's presence. The court also considered challenges to the trial judge's discretion in not discharging the jury on three occasions and various aspects of the trial's conduct. The Federal Court of Australia, comprising Blackburn, St. John, and Sheppard JJ, dismissed the appeal. The court held that none of the grounds for appeal had substance, whether considered individually or collectively. Specifically, the court found no merit in the argument that the injuries causing death were not inflicted in the victim's presence, and it rejected the contention that the trial judge should have discharged the jury. Furthermore, the court found no fault with the trial's conduct, including the long day the jury had on the day of their verdict. The court concluded that the appeal lacked any substantial basis and dismissed it accordingly.

Orders