Erich, Ante The Queen

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 n o t

l n f l l c t e d b e f o r e

p.m.,

some

f ~ v e

h o u r s a f t e r t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

f i rs t

-Jislt t o

t h c

:luu:je.

Accord ing ly ,

t he Je ry cou ld no t have been sa t~s f l ed

beyond

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t t h a t

t h e a p p e l l a n t

was

p l l t y .

The r e l e v e n t medical evidence was given by a

p a t h o l o g i s t ,

C r .

Jankus,

who

examnerl

the

body of

t h e

deceased

n o t l o n g a f t e r

I t was

dlscovered on

the

e.Je=lng

of Tuesday,

14th

March,

1578.

r e r>c lns of

t n e

doctor ' :

e v l d e n c e I n c h l e f d l s c l o s e s t h a t

h e

fslt

i5rer.t

L!l

7-f :c721-?:y

i n expressing any prec lse

view of ;hc

ti*-t, of de.-,th 101,

a l o n e

t h e

t u n e

l n f l l c t l o n o f

tile

1n;ur;ss.

I n z.n::wer

t o questions asked t; th-. l e?rnc$ tr:,jl.

,]U?"

tir...r(ir. Y e

end

o f

t he r ioc t c r ' s ev ldencc In

chief,

?<~:ti:

" d i t h a l l t h e s l i tns ,

:m$

I t 'Wcxnes m o r c

a n :.I-t

t h a n

sc l ence

I n e s t l m a t i n c

,dea th here ,

there

1:-

evldence

p u t r e f a c t l o n s o 1 would

s p y

could he znywhere between

l:< hours 3r.C poss;lb;y

two

o r

th ree days" .

The pe r lod of

18 hours w < I s ca lcu ln tPd fram th- tlm.

h:;

exarninatlon a t about 1 a.m.

cn '15 th Xax'ch,

enc? l e a c s h c k

t o 7 a.m.

14 th

Karch.

Tne

period o f two d a y 5 h911l4

lead

back

1 a.n:.

15th >larch

2t-d t h e pcrlo.:

of: tnree

days

to 1 a.m. on

Sunday,

12th

?::rch.

I n h l s c r o s s - e s n a l n c t i o n

co1.1n~c.l

f u r t h e

- y F e l i ? . ~ L

enaeavoure,-l t o p e r s u a d e t h e

d o z l o r

t:>

s a y

tn2-c

?:;e

t l , > , e

3 t

whlch dcath had occurred

h a s

wx thln

ve:'v

1r11cn

:I .~r ; -< , ' , , ' c r

..	.
.

11.

14.

17.

'. ,

- 7

--.

'. I

t o p r e p a r e

and

t h e r e i s no

evidence othcrwlse

t h a t tnlngs

were

done

quickly

than

would

havr been

the

CXP I f

t he

j u r o r ' S

problem

hac1

n o t

e x i s t e d .

I t w'cls

n o t

suggested

t h a t

t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s s t a t e m e n t

WES

any

The

s h o r t e r o r t h a t h e

would

have

given

evldcnce

If t he p r o r

had not been going awzy,

o r

t h a t c o u n s e l ' s a d d r e y s

W A S

any

s h o r t e r

a s

r e s u l t

o f

what

was

occur r ing .

Some

c r l t l c l s n

was made of

the

long day which the Jury

had

upon

t h e

d:jy

t h e i r v e r d i c t .

The

C o u r t

s a t

a t

9 a.m.,

b u t

h l s

Honour's summing up was concluded by 11.15 a.m.

?he

t ime t ake r . t he rea f t e r

was

taken because of

the nee6

t h e

ju ry

had

t o

cons ide r

t ne

me t t e r .

Dur lng

t h e

evenln5

h l s Honour

c a l l e d the

J u r y i n

anu

2 s k r d

whether

they were

n o t

t o o

t i r e d

t o

c o n t l n u e .

The

foreman's

was,

"h'e would

l l k e

t o c o n t i n u e .

he a r e a l o 9 ~

t h e way

and i

sugges t

t ha t pe rhaps

i f you were t o Flve u s a

1?ICJCk

round

about

o ' c lock" .

The

icry r e t u r n e d klt,rl i t s

v e r d l c t s o o n a f t e r w a r d s , a f t e r	a	r e t i r e rn rn t	of	about
e leven hours .

In ou r op in ion each

o f

the ' r a t t e r s r e l l c d

upon

t o

f o u n d t h e f i n a l

ground

appeal must

l o o k 4 < 3 t f l I - . ; t ly

i n

i s o l a t i o n

a n c

t h e n

i n

c o m b i n a t i o n .

Fo r

reasons

a l ready g iven

do no t f i nd any o f t he ma t t e r s r e l i ed

upon

grounds 1 t o 5 inclusive t o have substnnce.

Nor

do we regard

ther . as having subst ,mcc,

I f

211

m a t t e r s

a re

pu t

oge the r .

Fu r the rpore ,

do n o t

regard

t h e

f l n a l m a t t e r b a s e d

upon

the problem of one of

the Jurors

t o have

any

substance.

>/e

here

therefore

lon

t h a t

t h e s e v e n t h ~ r o u n d o f a p p e a l s h o u l d b e r e J e c t e d .

For

the r easons e iven

were of op ln ion tha t

the

appeal

should

dismissed.

[1980] FCA 96

25 Jun 1980