Fantakis v R

The appeal was brought by the appellant, Mr. Fantakis, against his conviction for murder. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The primary contention of the appellant was that the evidence relied upon by him was deemed "fresh evidence," which should have warranted a new trial. Additionally, the appellant argued that his trial counsel was incompetent, as they did not adhere to his instructions and failed to cross-examine witnesses regarding various documents.

The court examined several legal issues. Firstly, it determined whether the evidence presented by the appellant qualified as "fresh evidence." Secondly, the court assessed whether the trial counsel's performance was indeed deficient in following the appellant's instructions and in cross-examination. Thirdly, the court deliberated on whether the trial judge erred in not allowing the defence of mental illness or manslaughter due to substantial impairment to be considered by the jury. The court also evaluated if the trial judge made errors in admitting certain evidence and in not leaving the defence of self-defence and/or provocation to the jury. Additionally, the court considered whether the trial judge failed to provide appropriate directions and if there was a "shift" or "split" in the Crown case that led to a miscarriage of justice. Lastly, the court assessed whether the inclusion of a juror, who had been selected to speak on behalf of the jury at an earlier stage, in the ballot to select the verdict jury was erroneous.

The High Court found that the evidence presented by the appellant did not meet the criteria for "fresh evidence." The court also determined that the trial counsel's performance did not amount to incompetence. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in not allowing the defence of mental illness or manslaughter due to substantial impairment to be considered by the jury. Furthermore, the court found no errors in the trial judge's admission of evidence or in not leaving the defence of self-defence and/or provocation to the jury. The court also found no errors in the trial judge's directions and determined that there was no "shift" or "split" in the Crown case that led to a miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court found that the inclusion of the juror in the ballot to select the verdict jury was not erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal against the conviction and sentence.