Legal Research
Cases
Hothnyang v The Queen

Hothnyang v The Queen

Case [2014] VSCA 64 11 April 2014

Criminal Liability

Admissibility of Evidence

Res Judicata

Jury

Miscarriage of Justice

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0063
BORONIKA HOTHNYANG	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NETTLE, NEAVE JJA and SIFRIS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 April 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 64
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2013] VSC 61 (King J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Murder – Evidence – Relevance – Admissibility – Connection with crime – Disposition of applicant – Drunken orgy extending over two days – Whether evidence of applicant’s drunken aggressive behaviour towards persons other than deceased on morning of second day of orgy, some hours before killing of deceased, admissible as evidence of part of one transaction of which killing formed part – O’Leary v The King (1946) 73 CLR 566, applied – Evidence Act 2008, ss 135, 137.

JURY – Discharge – Whether judge erred in refusing to discharge jury after inadmissible evidence given in error – Whether evidence productive of substantial miscarriage of justice – Crofts v The Queen (1996) 186 CLR 427, applied; Baini v The Queen (2012) 246 CLR 469; Baini v The Queen (No 2) [2013] VSCA 157, referred to.

VERDICT – Whether unreasonable – Whether, in view of lies told by principal Crown witness and inconsistencies between evidence of witnesses, jury bound to have reasonable doubt as to identity of killer or her capacity to form murderous intent – Libke v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 559, applied; The Queen v O’Connor (1980) 146 CLR 64, referred to; Cutter v R (1997) 143 ALR 498, distinguished.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr David Grace QC with Mr D J Hancock	David Grace
For the Respondent	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr Craig Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA

NEAVE JA
SIFRIS AJA:

Following a trial in the Criminal Division, the applicant was convicted of the murder of her friend, William John Awu, at Dandenong on 15 July 2011, and sentenced therefor to 14 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 10 years and six months. She now seeks leave to appeal against conviction

The applicant was born on 15 September 1987 in South Sudan and was 24 years old at the time of the killing. She and the deceased were part of a larger ‘social group’ who gathered together on a regular basis to drink. One of their regular drinking places was a skateboard park in Dandenong, approximately 150 metres from the applicant’s home. She lived in a public housing flat which was managed by the Department of Human Services.

On Thursday 14 July 2011, the applicant, the deceased and a group of other males went to the skateboard park during the day and consumed large amounts of alcohol. At 2.45 pm police arrived and arrested the deceased for being drunk in a public place. The police took him to the Dandenong Police Station and lodged him in the cells at 3.05 pm.…

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 Hothnyang v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Hothnyang v The Queen [2014] VSCA 64
Case: [2014] VSCA 64
Decision Date: 11 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hothnyang v The Queen involved the conviction of the applicant for the murder of an individual during a drunken orgy. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining the admissibility of certain evidence, the propriety of discharging the jury, and the reasonableness of the jury's verdict. The central issue before the Court was whether the evidence of the applicant's aggressive behaviour towards others during the orgy, occurring hours before the murder, was relevant and admissible under the Evidence Act 2008. The Court applied the principles from O’Leary v The King, finding that such evidence could be pertinent to understanding the context and transaction in which the murder occurred, and therefore was admissible.

The Court also considered whether the trial judge erred in refusing to discharge the jury after the admission of inadmissible evidence. The decision hinged on whether this evidence was likely to produce a substantial miscarriage of justice, as outlined in Crofts v The Queen. The Court concluded that the error did not irreparably prejudice the fairness of the trial, thus the refusal to discharge the jury was not erroneous. This analysis took into account the broader context of the trial and the reliability of the remaining evidence.

Further, the Court examined the reasonableness of the jury's verdict, particularly in light of the inconsistencies in the evidence and the lies told by the principal Crown witness. The Court applied the principle from Libke v The Queen, which states that a jury is not bound to have a reasonable doubt simply because there are inconsistencies or falsehoods in the evidence. The Court found that the jury's verdict was not unreasonable, as it was based on a consideration of all the evidence presented, including the credibility of the witnesses and the overall circumstances of the case.

Orders