Kotvas v The Queen

Case [2010] VSCA 309


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

MIHAL KOTVAS

S APCR 2008 0752

Applicant

v
THE QUEEN Respondent

---

JUDGES MAXWELL P, REDLICH and HARPER JJA
WHERE HELD MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING 22 July 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT 19 November 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION [2010] VSCA 309
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM R v Mihal Kotvas (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Lacava, 11 July 2008)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Recklessly causing serious injury – Affray – Direction in circumstantial case where evidence is ‘strand in a cable’ – Direction as to expert evidence – Whether verdicts unsafe and unsatisfactory – Evidence of possible eye witness wrongly treated as consistent with Crown case at trial – Crown conceding on appeal that evidence inconsistent – Crown seeking to discredit eye witness on appeal – Appellate court unable to assess credibility – Unjust to appellant to order retrial – Acquittal entered

---

Appearances:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Applicant Mr D A Dann Ann Valos Criminal Law
For the Crown Ms C Barbagallo Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

  1. I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Redlich JA.  I agree with the disposition of the appeal which his Honour proposes, for the reasons which he gives.

REDLICH JA:

  1. Following a trial in the County Court, the applicant was convicted on one count of recklessly causing serious injury and one count of affray.  A sentence of six months’ imprisonment was wholly suspended.  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction.

  1. The Crown’s case at trial was that on the evening of Sunday, 26 February 2006, in the car park of the Rifle Club Hotel in Williamstown (‘the hotel’), the applicant attacked Mr Alan Black, an off-duty police officer, by kicking him repeatedly in the head.

  1. The following facts were not disputed at trial, and were established in part through the use of video surveillance, a Crown summary of which was provided to the jury at trial.

  1. At approximately 6 pm on the 26th, Mr Black and Mr Lawrence Trussler, another off-duty police officer, arrived at the hotel.  They commenced drinking and playing pool.  Also in attendance at the hotel was a group including the applicant, Mr Wally Mega (the co-accused at trial, who was acquitted), Mr Craig Veal, Mrs Susan Mega (Mr Mega’s wife), Ms Natalie Kelsey (Mr Veal’s partner) and Mr Samuel Sikora, who were also drinking.

  1. At about 8 pm, Mrs Mega left her husband at the hotel to go home.  At approximately 10:44 pm, Mr Mega and Mr Veal left the hotel through the rear entry foyer.

  1. At some time between 10:38 pm and 11:03 pm there was an argument between Mr Trussler and the applicant, in which Mr Black was also involved, sparked by Mr Trussler taking cigarettes from the applicant.  Overhearing this argument, Mr David Cucanic, the Gaming Manager at the hotel, Mr Khalid Abbas, a security officer, and Mr Tony Schembrey, another employee at the…

Continue reading Kotvas v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Kotvas v The Queen [2010] VSCA 309
Case
[2010] VSCA 309
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury and affray. The conviction was challenged on appeal to the High Court of Australia. The appellant argued that the jury direction in relation to circumstantial evidence was inadequate and that the direction concerning expert evidence was misconceived. The appellant also argued that evidence of a potential eyewitness was wrongly treated as consistent with the Crown case at trial, and that the Crown was now attempting to discredit the witness on appeal.

The High Court held that the jury direction in relation to circumstantial evidence was not entirely satisfactory but did not lead to a miscarriage of justice. The court found that the direction concerning expert evidence was misconceived, but this error did not affect the safety of the verdicts. The court held that the evidence of the potential eyewitness was wrongly treated as consistent with the Crown case at trial. The Crown conceded on appeal that the evidence was inconsistent with its case. The court found that it was not possible to assess the credibility of the witness on the appeal and that it would be unjust to the appellant to order a retrial.

The High Court found that the appellant's convictions were unsafe and unsatisfactory. The court held that in the 'exceptional' circumstances, it would be appropriate to enter a verdict of acquittal on both charges. The court noted that the appellant had already served a significant period of imprisonment and that it would be unjust to subject the appellant to a further trial. The court found that the appellant's convictions should be quashed and that verdicts of acquittal should be entered on both charges.

Orders

Orders of the court

In these ‘exceptional’ circumstances, I would order that a verdict of acquittal be entered on both charges.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.