Latu v R

Case [2023] NSWCCA 19 17 February 2023

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Latu v R [2023] NSWCCA 19
Hearing dates: 17 August 2022
Date of orders: 17 February 2023
Decision date: 17 February 2023
Before: Bell CJ at [1]
Davies J at [2]
Fagan J at [83]
Decision:
1. Extend time for filing the Notice of Appeal to 8 February 2022.
2. Refuse leave to appeal pursuant to r 4.15 of the Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW).

Catchwords:
CRIME – appeals – appeal against conviction – jury verdict – applicant found guilty of murder of intimate domestic partner – tendency and relationship evidence admitted – where tendency direction given – where no anti-tendency direction concerning relationship evidence given - where tendency evidence included eight incidents of violence towards deceased and former domestic partner – relationship evidence of threats of violence made by applicant to deceased – threat of violence to cave in deceased’s head – death caused by blunt force trauma to head – whether risk of impermissible tendency reasoning –whether anti-tendency direction should have been given - where direction not sought by experienced senior counsel for accused – legitimate forensic explanations available – no miscarriage of justice occasioned – application of r 4.15 – leave to appeal refused

Legislation Cited:
Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) r 4.15

Cases Cited:
BRS v The Queen (1997) 191 CLR 275; [1997] HCA 47
Craig v The Queen (2018) 264 CLR 202; [2018] HCA 13
Elomar v R; Hasan v R; Cheikho v R; Cheikho v R; Jamal v R [2014] NSWCCA 303; (2014) 316 ALR 206
FB v R [2020] NSWCCA 137
Hamilton (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2021] HCA 33; (2021) 95 ALJR 894
KRM v R (2000) 206 CLR 221; [2001] HCA 11
Medich v R [2021] NSWCCA 36
R v Latu [2018] NSWSC 1659
R v Latu (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 951
The Queen v Falzon (2018) 264 CLR 361; [2018] HCA 29
Vaoalii Toalepai v R [2009] NSWCCA 270

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Onitolosi Latu (Applicant)
The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Odgers SC (Applicant)
M Kumar & D Beaufils (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Hugo Law Group (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions NSW (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2016/237325
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Supreme Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

Nil

Date of Decision:

3 December 2018

Before:

Lonergan J

File Number(s):

2016/237325

HEADNOTE

On 3 December 2018 the applicant was convicted by a jury of having murdered Rhonda Baker on or about 7 August 2016. The jury accepted that the applicant inflicted multiple blunt force blows to Ms Baker’s head and caused her death. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 28 years with a non-parole period of 21 years. He was also sentenced for breaching an apprehended domestic violence order.

At the time of the murder, the applicant and Ms Baker were living together in an intimate domestic relationship. The trial judge…

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 Latu v R

Details

AGLC: Latu v R [2023] NSWCCA 19
Case: [2023] NSWCCA 19
Decision Date: 17 February 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Latu v R, the applicant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his intimate domestic partner. The applicant was found guilty by a jury and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in admitting certain evidence and providing a direction to the jury regarding that evidence. Specifically, the appeal centred on the admission of tendency and relationship evidence, and the failure to provide an anti-tendency direction concerning the relationship evidence. The applicant argued that the trial judge should have excluded the evidence due to the risk of unfair prejudice and impermissible tendency reasoning. The court examined whether the trial judge should have directed the jury to disregard the relationship evidence or given an anti-tendency direction in relation to it.

The court found that the risk of impermissible tendency reasoning was minimal, given that there were legitimate forensic explanations available to the jury that did not rely on the impermissible reasoning. The court also noted that the experienced senior counsel for the accused did not seek an anti-tendency direction concerning the relationship evidence. The court held that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, and the trial judge did not err in admitting the evidence or failing to give an anti-tendency direction. Consequently, the court applied rule 4.15 of the relevant rules of court and refused the applicant leave to appeal against his conviction.

Orders