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 on 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 of 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 of trial a l so r e Jec t ed -

no 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 be dlsT1 sscd.

On 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

.

c

.

.

.

.

4.

c

,

put to the jury ought no t have been 7ccepted tec? l l se lt

was e s t a b l i s h e d upon a 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 l p.m., some f ~ v e or

more 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. A 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 of 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, he ?<~: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:-

no evldence of p u t r e f a c t l o n s o 1 would s p y It

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. of 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. on 14 th Karch. Tne period o f two d a y 5 h911l4

lead back to 1 a.n:. on 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 I ve:'v 1r11cn :I .~r ; -< , ' , , ' c r

L

_.

c

.

..	.
.

,

.

11.

c

.

7

.

.

14.

.

.

c

.

.

17.

.

! '. ,

c

.

c

.

- 7

--.

.

c

.

. '. I

c

c

. .

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 more 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 L

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 a 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

of 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 reply 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 10 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 of appeal must be 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 we do no t f i nd any o f t he ma t t e r s r e l i ed

upon In grounds 1 t o 5 inclusive t o have substnnce. Nor

c

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 , we 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 o f op ln 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 we were of op ln ion tha t the

appeal should be dismissed.